Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp by baseline β‐cell function in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes: Exploratory analyses of the Soli‐D study
Authors' conclusion
iGlarLixi provides improved glycaemic control at lower insulin daily doses compared with IDegAsp, regardless of C-peptide or HOMA-β levels, in Chinese people with uncontrolled T2D on OADs.
Study context
- Population
- Chinese adults with uncontrolled T2D on oral antidiabetic drugs
- Participants
- 386 adults
- Comparison
- iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp by baseline fasting C-peptide and HOMA-β quartile
Methodological detailsexploratory analyses, 24-week, multicentre, open-label
- Exploratory analyses
- 24-week
- Multicentre
- Open-label
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Week 24
- Change in HbA1c, FPG or postprandial glucose at Week 24 showed no interaction with fasting C-peptide or HOMA-β quartile
- iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp: P = 0.045
- iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp: P = 0.023
- iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp: P = 0.025
Further findings
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol)iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp · higher with iGlarLixi | P = 0.009 |
| HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol)iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp · higher with iGlarLixi | P = 0.013 |
| Body weight, HOMA-β Q1Body weight benefits with iGlarLixi | P = 0.003 |
| Total insulin daily dose | pint <0.001 for all |
- Total insulin daily dose: lower with iGlarLixi; interaction between C-peptide or HOMA-β quartile and insulin dose (U or U/kg)
Safety
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Hypoglycaemia event rate, HOMA-β Q1iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp · lower with iGlarLixi | P = 0.040 |
| Hypoglycaemia event rate, HOMA-β Q1iGlarLixi vs IDegAsp · lower with iGlarLixi | P = 0.037 |
Original publication
Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp by baseline β‐cell function in Chinese people with type 2 diabetes: Exploratory analyses of the Soli‐D study. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 14 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →