Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Insulin Regimes on Glycemic Control for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome volume 16, Article number: 3 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Randomized controlled trials have found that once-weekly insulin resulted in greater glycemic control compared to once-daily insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, no direct comparisons have been made between different types of once-weekly insulin thus far. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of the two most advanced once-weekly insulin analogues, namely insulin icodec and insulin Fc, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We conducted a thorough search in the databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search included articles published from the beginning to October 10, 2023, with no language limitations. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness and safety of once-weekly insulin in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was to evaluate excellent glycemic control, defined as patients achieving glycated hemoglobin levels below 7%.

Results

We identified a total of 7 trials involving 2829 patients. The results showed that once-weekly insulin icodec is more effective than once-weekly insulin Fc (RR 1.59 [95% CI 1.08–2.38]), once-daily degludec (RR 1.43 [95% CI 1.14–1.83]), and once-daily glargine (RR 1.15 [95% CI 1.00-1.41]). Moreover, the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was lower with once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-daily degludec (RR 0.00016 [95% CI 0 to 0.41]). However, no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia was observed between once-weekly insulin icodec and once-daily glargine (RR 0.39 [95% CI 0.03 to 4.83]).

Conclusions

In patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly insulin icodec achieved superior glycemic control compared to once-weekly insulin Fc, with no significant difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia. The ranking probability results have shown that one weekly icodec seems to be the preferred option in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Trial registration

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023470894.

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes poses a significant health burden worldwide, requiring effective management strategies to control glycemic levels. When noninsulin glucose-lowering agents fail to achieve optimal glycemic control, many individuals with type 2 diabetes resort to basal insulin treatment [1]. However, the daily administration of basal insulins may present challenges in terms of treatment adherence, persistence, and treatment burden.

In order to address these challenges, individuals with type 2 diabetes have expressed a strong preference for a once-weekly injectable treatment option. Such an option has the potential to improve treatment adherence, enhance persistence, and reduce the overall treatment burden. To fulfill this need, two advanced basal insulin analogues have been developed specifically for once-weekly subcutaneous administration in individuals with diabetes. The first option is insulin icodec, which is an insulin analog acylated with a C20 fatty diacid (icosanedioic acid) side chain. The second option is insulin Fc, which is a fusion protein combining a single-chain insulin variant with a human immunoglobulin G fragment crystallizable domain [2].

To evaluate the effectiveness of these once-weekly insulin options, several randomized controlled trials have been conducted. For instance, the ONWARDS trial found that once-weekly insulin resulted in greater glycemic control compared to once-daily insulin [3,4,5,6,7]. However, it is noteworthy that no direct comparisons have been made between different types of once-weekly insulin thus far.

Considering the lack of direct evidence, network meta-analysis is an increasingly employed statistical methodology that facilitates the estimation of comparative treatment effectiveness [8, 9]. Therefore, the objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of the two most advanced once-weekly insulin analogues, namely insulin icodec and insulin Fc, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Protocol and guidance

The study followed the standard guidelines provided by the reporting of systematic reviews and network meta-analysis [10, 11]. Additionally, the study protocol was registered with PROSPER (CRD42023470894).

Criteria for considering studies for this review

The eligibility criteria for this study were determined based on the PICOS Criteria (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design). We included published randomized controlled trials that met the following criteria:

  1. (1)

    Population: The study included adults (age ≥ 18) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, whether they have used insulin in the past.

  2. (2)

    Intervention: We included studies that investigated once-weekly insulin, including but not limited to insulin icodec and insulin Fc (IF, insulin efsitora alfa). Insulin could have been administered regardless of the type, dose, or duration. If other treatment medications were given, they had to be the same in all groups.

  3. (3)

    Comparison intervention: once-daily insulin, including but not limited to insulin glargine and insulin degludec.

  4. (4)

    Outcome: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c levels below 7%. Secondary safety outcomes included hypoglycemia alerts episodes (hypoglycemia confirmed by glucose level < 70 mg/dL or ≥ 54 mg /dL, clinically significant hypoglycemia (hypoglycemia confirmed by glucose level < 54 mg/dL, severe hypoglycemia (hypoglycemia associated with severe cognitive impairment requiring external assistance for recovery), any adverse event, serious adverse event and any injection-site reaction.

  5. (5)

    Study design: We included randomized controlled trials but excluded crossover trials.

Search strategy

Our research team conducted a comprehensive literature search using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases until October 10, 2023, without any language restrictions. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing or unpublished trials that fulfilled the potential eligibility criteria. To ensure a comprehensive search for relevant articles, we manually reviewed the reference lists of identified trials and systematic reviews. For more information on our search strategy, please refer to Table S1 in the supplement.

Study selection

Two reviewers (PW and WX) independently evaluated the relevance of titles and abstracts after removing duplicate studies. The full texts of selected articles were obtained to determine their eligibility for inclusion. Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through consensus or by consulting a third reviewer (YZ).

Data collection process

Two reviewers (PW and WX) employed a standardized form for data extraction from the included trials independently. Data were extracted based on intention-to-treat principles, whereby all randomized participants contributed data based on their assigned treatment. When relevant information for the outcome could not be extracted from published reports, we additionally reached out to the corresponding authors via email to acquire any necessary missing data. We resolved discrepancies either through consensus or by inviting a third reviewer (YZ) for assistance.

Quality assessment

Two independent reviewers (PW and WX) assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using the Risk of Bias tool, [12] which consists of five domains. Each trial was assigned a study-level score for each domain, indicating the level of bias risk as low, high, or some concerns. The certainty of evidence in the meta-analysis was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, based on established guidelines [13]. Any disagreements in the assessments were resolved through consensus or by inviting a third reviewer (YZ) to make the final decision in cases where consensus could not be reached.

Data synthesis

This network meta-analysis was conducted using R software (version 4.3.1), specifically the netmeta and gemtc packages (version 1.0–1), which employ both Bayesian and frequentist approaches. The goal of this analysis was to compare multiple treatments using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method with vague priors [14].

To achieve model convergence, we utilized generalized linear models with 4 chains and 50,000 iterations for each chain. The first 50,000 iterations were considered as burn-in and discarded, while the subsequent 100,000 iterations were used to ensure model convergence. We assessed model convergence by evaluating Gelman-Rubin plots, utilizing the potential scale reduction factor as an indicator. A potential scale reduction factor close to one indicated complete convergence of the model. If both direct and indirect evidence were available for a specific pairwise comparison, we assessed their agreement using methods to identify inconsistencies in the network meta-analysis.

For dichotomous variables, treatment effects were estimated using the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval [15]. We utilized the Netleague command to report the relative treatment effects for all pairwise comparisons estimated through network meta-analysis. Additionally, we ranked the interventions based on the primary outcome using a Rankogram plot, which displays the probability of interventions being ranked in various positions [16].

Results

Included studies and study characteristics

Figure 1 presents the PRISMA diagram depicting the process of the meta-analysis. Our comprehensive electronic literature search initially identified a total of 2725 studies. Ultimately, 7 trials [4, 6, 7, 17,18,19,20] met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Search strategy and final included and excluded studies

Full size image

The main characteristics of the included trials are shown in Table 1. The studies included in the analysis were published from 2020 to 2023 and encompassed a total of 2829 patients. The sample sizes varied from 102 to 984. The median duration of follow-up was 26 weeks, ranging from 16 to 78 weeks.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Risk-of-bias assessments

Risk-of-bias assessments are presented in Supplement Fig. 1. The analysis identifies that 3 trials [4, 17, 20] were identified as having a low risk of bias, 1 trial [6] was identified as a unclear risk of bias and the remaining 3 trials [7, 18, 19] were deemed to have a high risk of bias, mainly because some trials employed an open-label design; However, the continuous glucose monitoring recordings used for analyzing the primary endpoint were blinded from both the investigators and the trial participants.

The primary outcome

A total of 7 studies, involving 2829 patients, reported the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c levels below 7%. Figure 2 presents the results of the Network plot, rankogram plot and intervention effects plot (both pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis) for the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c levels below 7%. There was evidence to support the notion that once-weekly insulin icodec is more effective than once-weekly insulin Fc (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.08–2.38), once-daily degludec (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14–1.83) and once-daily glargine (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.41). Notably, the rankogram plot indicated that once-weekly insulin icodec had the highest statistical probability of being the optimal choice for the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c levels below 7% (Fig. 2). once-weekly insulin icodec had the highest SUCRA value 0.95, followed by once-daily glargine (SUCRA 0.88), once -daily degludec (SUCRA, 0.76) and once-insulin Fc (SUCRA, 0.78). The potential scale reduction factor value of 1.000 suggested a strong iterative effect, complete convergence, and stable model outputs. The S2 table presented the main findings of the GRADE assessment of certainty for the outcome.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plots of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-weekly insulin FC for HbA1c levels below 7%

Full size image

Secondary efficacy outcomes

The secondary safety outcomes were evaluated and presented. The once-weekly insulin icodec was associated with a lower incidence of severe hypoglycemia compared to the once-daily deglude (RR 0.00016 [95% CI 0 to 0.41], Fig. 3) and no significant difference was observed between once-weekly insulin icodec and once-daily glargine (RR 0.39 [95% CI 0.03 to 4.83]).There were no significant differences between once-weekly insulin icodec and once-weekly insulin Fc (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.67]), once-daily glargine (RR 1.20 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.49) and once-daily deglude (RR 1.30 [95% CI 0.98 to 1.70]) in terms of hypoglycemia alerts episodes (Fig. 4). Similarly, there was also no significant difference between once-weekly insulin icodec and once-weekly insulin Fc, once-daily glargin and once-daily deglude including clinically significant hypoglycemia (Fig. 5), any adverse event (S2 Figure), serious adverse event (S3 Figure) and any injection-site reaction (S4 Figure).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plots of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-weekly insulin FC for severe hypoglycemia

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plots of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-weekly insulin FC for hypoglycemia alerts episodes

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plots of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-weekly insulin FC for clinically significant hypoglycemia

Full size image

Discussion

This study found that treatment with once-weekly insulin icodec led to improved glycemic control compared to other insulin regimens, including once-weekly insulin FC and once-daily insulin. Importantly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycemia between the once-weekly and once-daily insulin groups, indicating similar safety profiles. In summary, these findings suggest that once-weekly insulin icodec may be a viable and safe treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Comparison with other studies

These results are consistent with previous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses [21, 22] that have shown the superiority of once-weekly insulin over once-daily insulin in improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, no trials have compared outcomes after the use of once-weekly insulin icodec and other once-weekly insulin regimes. Karakasis et al. [21] conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of once-weekly insulin in type 2 diabetes patients. The results of subgroup analysis, based on different types of once-weekly insulin, suggest that once-weekly insulin icodec may be a more preferable choice compared to other alternatives. Our study adds value by comparing different types of once-weekly insulin analogues, providing insights into their relative effectiveness. The significantly higher efficacy of once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-weekly insulin Fc suggests that it may be a preferred option for achieving excellent glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Regarding the safety profile, we found that the risk of adverse events associated with once-weekly insulin icodec is similar to that of other insulin regimes. This means that the improved effectiveness of once-weekly insulin icodec compared to other insulin regimes is not accompanied by a higher risk of adverse events.

The variations in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these insulin types likely contribute to these findings. Insulin icodec, as a long-acting insulin, provides sustained release over a week, leading to more stable blood glucose levels [23]. In contrast, insulin Fc, a short-acting insulin, requires daily administration and may result in greater fluctuations in blood glucose control. Our findings underscore the importance of considering the specific characteristics of different insulin formulations when evaluating their effectiveness in glycemic control. Further research, including randomized controlled trials directly comparing these two formulations, is necessary to confirm these conclusions and provide stronger evidence.

Strengths and limitations

This review demonstrates several strengths, including a comprehensive search for evidence, the use of an a priori protocol, and the assessment of eligibility, risk of bias, and data abstraction by multiple reviewers. Moreover, the evaluation of the quality of evidence in this review was conducted meticulously, resulting in the identification of high-quality evidence for numerous critical outcomes. The meta-analysis included an extensive search of relevant databases without language restrictions, thereby increasing the likelihood of capturing relevant studies. The primary outcome measure, excellent glycemic control, is commonly utilized and holds clinical relevance in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes, defined as achieving a HbA1c level below 7%.

This network meta-analysis still has some limitations. Firstly, the duration of follow-up and the variation in titration algorithms among the identified randomized controlled trials introduce heterogeneity and may limit the generalizability of our findings. Secondly, in addition, the open-label design adopted in most randomized controlled trials, motivated by safety considerations, may have influenced dose adjustments as well as the reporting and monitoring of adverse events. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the trials included in this meta-analysis primarily examined intermediate and short-term outcomes. Consequently, the long-term impact of once-weekly insulin on the prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality remains uncertain. To address this knowledge gap and establish the durability of the observed beneficial effects, further studies with extended follow-up durations are warranted.

Implications

It’s important to note that guidelines regarding once-weekly insulin are still in development. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) [24] have not yet included recommendations specific to this insulin formulation in their guidelines. However, as more research is conducted and more clinical experience is gained, these guidelines may be updated to reflect the potential benefits and appropriate use of once-weekly insulin icodec. Our findings have important implications for both professionals and policymakers in the field of diabetes treatment. The use of once-weekly insulin especially the once-weekly insulin icodec may facilitate treatment acceptance and adherence among patients, as it requires less frequent administration and produces better glycemic control and similar safety. This can potentially improve patient outcomes and increase treatment satisfaction. Ultimately, the choice of once-weekly insulin icodec should be made on an individual basis, taking into consideration factors such as patient preferences, lifestyle, and goals of therapy. Close monitoring and consultation with a healthcare professional are vital to ensure optimal treatment outcomes for patients with diabetes.

Moving forward, further research is warranted to explore the long-term efficacy, safety profile, and cost-effectiveness of once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-weekly insulin FC. Additionally, studying the impact of once-weekly insulin icodec on patient’s quality of life and satisfaction with treatment would provide valuable insights.

This study demonstrated that once-weekly insulin icodec achieved superior glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes compared to once-weekly insulin FC, without significant differences of hypoglycemia. The ranking probability results suggested that once-weekly insulin icodec may be the preferred treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data Availability

No additional data is available.

References

  1. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to Glycemic Treatment: standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:140–s57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenstock J, Del Prato S. Basal weekly insulins: the way of the future! Metabolism. 2022;126:154924.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frias J, Chien J, Zhang Q, Chigutsa E, Landschulz W, Syring K, et al. Safety and efficacy of once-weekly basal insulin fc in people with type 2 Diabetes previously treated with basal insulin: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2023;11:158–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lingvay I, Asong M, Desouza C, Gourdy P, Kar S, Vianna A, et al. Once-weekly insulin Icodec vs once-daily insulin degludec in adults with insulin-naive type 2 Diabetes: the ONWARDS 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023;330:228–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mathieu C, Ásbjörnsdóttir B, Bajaj HS, Lane W, Matos A, Murthy S, et al. Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 Diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2023;401:1929–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Philis-Tsimikas A, Asong M, Franek E, Jia T, Rosenstock J, Stachlewska K, et al. Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin-treated type 2 Diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat-to-target trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2023;11:414–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenstock J, Bain SC, Gowda A, Jódar E, Liang B, Lingvay I, et al. Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without previous insulin. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:297–308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26:753–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, Daw J, Andes S, Eldessouki R, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17:157–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, Hillege H, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:285–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. O’Rourke K, Altman DG. Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med. 2005;24:2733–42. author reply 43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bajaj HS, Bergenstal RM, Christoffersen A, Davies MJ, Gowda A, Isendahl J, et al. 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. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:1586–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bue-Valleskey JM, Kazda CM, Ma C, Chien J, Zhang Q, Chigutsa E, et al. Once-weekly basal insulin fc demonstrated similar Glycemic Control to once-daily insulin degludec in insulin-naive patients with type 2 Diabetes: a phase 2 Randomized Control Trial. Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1060–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lingvay I, Buse JB, Franek E, Hansen MV, Koefoed MM, Mathieu C, et al. A randomized, open-label comparison of once-weekly insulin Icodec Titration Strategies Versus once-daily insulin glargine U100. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:1595–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosenstock J, Bajaj HS, Janež A, Silver R, Begtrup K, Hansen MV, et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 Diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2107–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karakasis P, Patoulias D, Pamporis K, Popovic DS, Stachteas P, Bougioukas KI et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly versus once-daily basal insulin analogues in the treatment of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023.

  22. Ribeiro ESR, de Miranda Gauza M, Guisso MES, da Silva JON, Kohara SK. Once-weekly insulin Icodec vs. once-daily insulin glargine U100 for type 2 Diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase 2 randomized controlled trials. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2023;67:e000614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nishimura E, Pridal L, Glendorf T, Hansen BF, Hubálek F, Kjeldsen T et al. Molecular and pharmacological characterization of insulin icodec: a new basal insulin analog designed for once-weekly dosing. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2021;9.

  24. Davies MJ, Aroda VR, Collins BS, Gabbay RA, Green J, Maruthur NM, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2022;45:2753–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China(82271364), the innovation team project of Affiliated Hospital of Clinical Medicine College of Chengdu University (CDFYCX202203), and the project of Sichuan Science and Technology Bureau (22ZDYF0798), the 1·3·5  for disciplines of excellence-Clinical Research Incubation Project, West China Hospital, Sichuan University (21HXFH046), the project of health commission of Sichuan province (2019HR50), and Nursing Association of Sichuan Province H21003.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China

    Peng Wang, Jialing He & Fang Fang

  2. Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Yu Zhang, Wenhao Xu & Yuning Feng

  3. Department of Surgical Intensive care medicine, Shanxi Provincial People’s Hospital, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China

    Lu Jia

  4. Department of critical care medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Liyuan Peng

  5. Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Weelic Chong

  6. Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Yang Hai

  7. Sichuan University Library, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

    Ping Xu

Authors
  1. Peng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wenhao Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jialing He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liyuan Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuning Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ping Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Weelic Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yang Hai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Lu Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Fang Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concept: FF. Design: All authorsAcquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: PW, YZ, WX, JH, and FF Statistical analysis: PW and YZ Drafting of the manuscript: PW and YZ Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. 

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fang Fang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not required.

Financial Disclosure Statement

None.

Patient confidentiality forms

Not required.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, P., Zhang, Y., Xu, W. et al. Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Insulin Regimes on Glycemic Control for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr 16, 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-023-01240-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-023-01240-5

Keywords

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

ISSN: 1758-5996

Contact us