Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes Compared with Degludec and Glargine on the Morning Injection: An Open-label Randomized Controlled Trial

Current usage of long-acting insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Insulin treatment is fundamental to diabetes management. Basal insulin therapy reduces intraday glycemic fluctuations upon reaching a steady state. Besides better blood glucose regulation and achieving target HbA1c values in patients, it also offers protection from diabetes complications. In this review, we aimed to compare basal-acting insulins in light of the literature.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed current evidence related to diabetes treatment with basal insulins. This includes discussions on clinical trials and meta-analyses concerning first and second-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulins. Treatment indications for long-acting basal insulins, which have shown benefits and are considered superior or comparable to others in the literature, are derived from current clinical studies and meta-analyses, which form the basis of the recommendations in this review.

EXPERT OPINION

First and second-generation basal insulins do not show much superiority over each other in terms of blood glucose regulation and reaching the target HbA1c. However, second-generation basal insulins cause fewer hypoglycemic events. We recommend using the appropriate basal insulin in patient-based, individualized treatments. Basal insulin Icodec may become more widely used over time, owing to its association with less hypoglycemia and a reduction in the number of injections.

Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Clinical Trials and Real-world Evidence Across Two Decades

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) has emerged as the "standard of care" basal insulin for the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Both formulations, insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) and glargine 300 U/mL (Gla- 300) have been extensively studied against various comparator basal insulins across various clinical and real-world studies. In this comprehensive article, we reviewed the evidence on both insulin glargine formulations in T1DM across clinical trials and real-world studies.

METHODS

Evidence in T1DM for Gla-100 and Gla-300 since their approvals in 2000 and 2015, respectively, were reviewed.

RESULTS

Gla-100 when compared to the second-generation basal insulins, Gla-300 and IDeg-100, demonstrated a comparable risk of overall hypoglycemia, but the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia was higher with Gla-100. Additional benefits of Gla-300 over Gla-100 include a prolonged (>24- hours) duration of action, a more stable glucose-lowering profile, improved treatment satisfaction, and greater flexibility in the dose administration timing.

CONCLUSION

Both glargine formulations are largely comparable to other basal insulins in terms of glucose-lowering properties in T1DM. Further, risk of hypoglycemia is lower with Gla-100 than Neutral Protamine Hagedorn but comparable to insulin detemir.

The efficacy of insulin degludec and insulin glargine over NPH insulin among toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes using glycemic variability and time in range

Optimizing glycemic control without risking hypoglycemia is crucial in toddlers and preschoolers with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to avoid cognitive impairment later in life. Hence, this study aims to compare glycemic parameters among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D in relation to different basal insulins. Sixty toddlers and preschoolers with T1D with mean age of 3.53 ± 1.17 years (range, 2-6) and mean diabetes duration of 9.37 ± 1.85 months were randomly assigned into three equal groups; group A received insulin degludec, group B received insulin glargine, and group C were on NPH. At baseline, the three groups were matched regarding clinical and laboratory parameters (p > 0.05). They were followed up at 3 and 6 months for insulin daily dose (IDD), hypoglycemia and severe-hypoglycemia frequency, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). At the study endpoint, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was assessed in a random sample of 10 patients from each group. The mean time in range (TIR) of the studied cohort was 55.07 ± 24.05%, and their mean coefficient of variation (CV) was 42.82 ± 11.69%. The TIR was significantly higher in the degludec group (69.36 ± 18.54) and the glargine group (55.43 ± 26.51) than the NPH group (32.56 ± 9.11), p < 0.001. Meanwhile, the CV was significantly lower in the degludec group (35.12 ± 6.47) than the gargine (44.1 ± 13.13) and the NPH (53.8 ± 7.54) groups, p < 0.001. The insulin degludec and glargine groups had significantly lower HbA1c (p = 0.002), hypoglycemia (p = 0.006), severe hypoglycemia (p = 0.029), and IDD (p = 0.015) than the NPH group.

CONCLUSION

Insulin degludec and glargine resulted in better HbA1c and TIR with reduced hypoglycemia and IDD than NPH among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D. Moreover, CV was lowest in the insulin degludec group.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Insulin therapy is the mainstay of T1D management. • Optimal insulin therapy for young children with T1D should provide effective glycemic.

WHAT IS NEW

• Insulin degludec and insulin glargine have better efficacy than NPH insulin among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D in the term of significantly lower coefficient of variation, HbA1c and IDD and significantly higher time in range. • Insulin degludec and insulin glargine have better safety in the term of less hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia episodes than NPH insulin among toddlers and preschoolers with T1D.

A simulator with realistic and challenging scenarios for virtual T1D patients undergoing CSII and MDI therapy

In silico simulations have become essential for the development of diabetes treatments. However, currently available simulators are not challenging enough and often suffer from limitations in insulin and meal absorption variability, which is unable to realistically reflect the dynamics of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Additionally, T1D simulators are mainly designed for the testing of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapies. In this work, a simulator is presented that includes a generated virtual patient (VP) cohort and both fast- and long-acting Glargine-100 U/ml (Gla-100), Glargine-300 U/ml (Gla-300), and Degludec-100 U/ml (Deg-100) insulin models. Therefore, in addition to CSII therapies, multiple daily injections (MDI) therapies can also be tested. The Hovorka model and its published parameter probability distributions were used to generate cohorts of VPs that represent a T1D population. Valid patients are filtered through restrictions that guarantee that they are physiologically acceptable. To obtain more realistic scenarios, basal insulin profile patterns from the literature have been used to identify variability in insulin sensitivity. A library of mixed meals identified from real data has also been included. This work presents and validates a methodology for the creation of realistic VP cohorts that include physiological variability and a simulator that includes challenging and realistic scenarios for in silico testing. A cohort of 47 VPs has been generated and in silico simulations of both CSII and MDI therapies were performed in open-loop. The simulation outcome metrics were contrasted with literature results.

Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine on Glycemic Variability in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Currently, glycemic variability has more deleterious effects than sustained hyperglycemia and is closely associated with acute and chronic complications of diabetes. Reducing glycemic excursion is becoming another vital goal of glycemic control in clinical practice. This study aimed to determine whether insulin degludec (IDeg) or insulin glargine (IGla) was more beneficial for reducing glycemic fluctuations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research was constructed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched eight databases and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 30 November 2021. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of glucose variability between IDeg and IGla in diabetic patients were included.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 8,683 participants were included. In patients with T1DM, IDeg was associated with a lower mean (MD: -16.25, 95% CI -29.02 to -3.07, P = 0.01) and standard deviation (P = 0.03) compared to IGla in fasting blood glucose (FBG); in people with T2DM, IDeg was related to a lower mean of FBG versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml (IGla100) (P <0.001) and had a more extended time in the range (TIR) than IGla100 (SMD: 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.27, P = 0.02) but not longer than insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGla300). Moreover, IDeg had a lower coefficient of variation of FBG than IGla (P = 0.0254). For other indicators of glycemic variability, namely, standard deviation of blood glucose for 24 h, the mean of 24-h blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, the coefficient of variation for 24 h, the mean of daily differences, area under the glucose curve, and M-value, no significant differences were identified between IDeg and IGla, regardless of T1DM or T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current studies, there was comparable efficacy between IDeg and IGla from multiple aspects of glycemic variability, regardless of T1DM or T2DM. However, IDeg may be superior to IGla in reducing FBG variability in T1DM and T2DM. Nonetheless, due to the limitations of the original studies, it is still unclear whether IDeg is superior to both IGla100 and IGla300. In T2DM, IDeg had more extended TIR than IGla100 but not longer than IGla300. Additionally, more well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing IDeg with IGla300 for different indicators of glycemic variability are still warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021283203.

Perspectives of glycemic variability in diabetic neuropathy: a comprehensive review

Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most prevalent chronic complications of diabetes, and up to half of diabetic patients will develop diabetic neuropathy during their disease course. Notably, emerging evidence suggests that glycemic variability is associated with the pathogenesis of diabetic complications and has emerged as a possible independent risk factor for diabetic neuropathy. In this review, we describe the commonly used metrics for evaluating glycemic variability in clinical practice and summarize the role and related mechanisms of glycemic variability in diabetic neuropathy, including cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cognitive impairment. In addition, we also address the potential pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment methods for diabetic neuropathy, aiming to provide ideas for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

Zhang et al. describe metrics for evaluating glycaemic variability (GV) in clinical practice and summarize the role and related mechanisms of GV in diabetic neuropathy, including cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cognitive impairment. They aim to stimulate ideas for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

Simplification of complex insulin regimens using canagliflozin or liraglutide in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes: A 24-week randomized controlled trial

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We investigated the potential use of canagliflozin, in comparison with liraglutide, as an alternative to bolus insulin in patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving multiple daily insulin injection therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 40 patients, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels <7.5% controlled by multiple daily insulin injection therapy, all bolus insulin was randomly switched to canagliflozin (100 mg/day) or liraglutide (0.3-0.9 mg/day) for 24 weeks. Basal insulin was continued with dose adjustment according to a predefined algorithm. The end-points were the change in the HbA1c level, glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, body mass index, insulin dose, quality of life (QOL) and safety assessments. Factors influencing the changes in QOL were also assessed using a simple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The change in HbA1c from baseline was comparable between the treatments. Both treatments maintained the HbA1c level to the baseline levels with stable glucose variability and no severe hypoglycemia for 24 weeks, decreased total insulin dose, and significantly increased the QOL score. The change in QOL was significantly associated with injection frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus, under the support of basal insulin, complex insulin regimens can be simplified by replacing all bolus insulin with once-daily canagliflozin or liraglutide, which improves patients' QOL.

Synthetic long-acting insulin analogs for the management of type 1 diabetes: an update

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by insulin deficiency and requires near-physiological insulin replacement. In most patients, this is accomplished by basal bolus therapy consisting of a long-acting basal insulin administered once or twice daily and short-acting insulin with main meals. Several long-acting insulin analogs have been developed to optimize basal insulin therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the design of - and data from - randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess glucose lowering efficacy and safety of long-acting insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the non-inferiority treat-to-target design of insulin, RCTs treatment differences primarily appear as differences in hypoglycemia risk. Data suggest that the first generation long-acting insulin analogs insulin glargine U100 and insulin detemir have a similar glucose lowering efficacy compared to NPH insulin but a lower risk of hypoglycemia, particularly during nighttime. The newer analogs insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec provide non-inferior efficacy, although insulin glargine U300 is less potent unit-to-unit. Insulin degludec reduces hypoglycemia risk compared to insulin glargine U100. Future studies should explore the potential for further improvement of treatment results in type 1 diabetes by a structured approach to personalization of basal insulin therapy.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42017077051.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

Individualizing Time-in-Range Goals in Management of Diabetes Mellitus and Role of Insulin: Clinical Insights From a Multinational Panel

Diabetes mellitus is a global health concern associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Inadequate control of diabetes leads to chronic complications and higher mortality rates, which emphasizes the importance of achieving glycemic targets. Although glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) is the gold standard for measuring glycemic control, it has several limitations. Therefore, in recent years, along with the emergence of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology, glycemic control modalities have moved beyond HbA_1c. They encompass modern glucometrics, such as glycemic variability (GV) and time-in-range (TIR). The key advantage of these newer metrics over HbA_1c is that they allow personalized diabetes management with person-centric glycemic control. Basal insulin analogues, especially second-generation basal insulins with properties such as longer duration of action and low risk of hypoglycemia, have demonstrated clinical benefits by reducing GV and improving TIR. Therefore, for more effective and accurate diabetes management, the development of an integrated approach with second-generation basal insulin and glucometrics involving GV and TIR is the need of the hour. With this objective, a multinational group of endocrinologists and diabetologists reviewed the existing recommendations on TIR, provided their clinical insights into the individualization of TIR targets, and elucidated on the role of the second-generation basal insulin analogues in addressing TIR.

Day-to-Day Variations in Fasting Plasma Glucose Do Not Influence Gastric Emptying in Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Acute experimental variations in glycemia decelerate (hyperglycemia) or accelerate (hypoglycemia) gastric emptying. Whether spontaneous variations in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) have a similar influence on gastric emptying is yet unclear.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Gastric emptying of a mixed meal was prospectively studied three times in 20 patients with type 1 diabetes and 10 healthy subjects with normal glucose tolerance using a ¹³C-CO₂ octanoate breath test with Wagner-Nelson analysis. The velocity of gastric emptying was related to FPG measured before the test (grouped as low, intermediate, or high). In addition, gastric emptying data from 255 patients with type 1 diabetes studied for clinical indications were compared by tertiles of baseline FPG.

RESULTS

Despite marked variations in FPG (by 4.8 [95% CI 3.4; 6.2] mmol/L), gastric emptying did not differ among the three prospective examinations in patients with type 1 diabetes (Δ T_1/2 between highest and lowest FPG: 1 [95% CI -35; 37] min; P = 0.90). The coefficient of variation for T_1/2 determined three times was 21.0%. Similar results at much lower variations in FPG were found in healthy subjects. In the cross-sectional analysis, gastric emptying did not differ between the tertiles of FPG (Δ T_1/2 between highest and lowest FPG: 7 [95% CI -10; 23] min; P = 0.66), when FPG varied by 7.2 (6.7; 7.8) mmol/L. However, higher HbA_1c was significantly related to slower gastric emptying.

CONCLUSIONS

Day-to-day variations in FPG not induced by therapeutic measures do not influence gastric emptying significantly. These findings are in contrast with those obtained after rapidly clamping plasma glucose in the hyper- or hypoglycemic concentrations range and challenge the clinical importance of short-term glucose fluctuations for gastric emptying in patients with type 1 diabetes. Rather, chronic hyperglycemia is associated with slowed gastric emptying.

Comparison of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs: A Review of the Evidence from Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Many people with insulin-treated diabetes continue to experience inadequate glycemic control and a high incidence of hypoglycemic events, despite improvements in therapeutic strategies. While glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) is currently recognized as the gold-standard for assessing glycemic control, the measure reflects mean blood glucose levels over a period of time, does not inform on acute glycemic deviations, and can be unreliable in certain populations. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) facilitates the acquisition of blood glucose data around the clock and, importantly, predicts and/or captures acute hyper- and hypoglycemic episodes. In light of the recent publication of the Time in Range (TIR) International Consensus Group report on key CGM metrics, we performed a review of current CGM evidence for second-generation basal insulins in both people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The identified studies highlight the varied CGM-related metrics used to assess basal insulins, which complicate comparisons. Furthermore, all studies had small sample sizes and typically were of short duration, which may account for the lack of statistically significant between-treatment differences observed. Differences were seen in the titration approaches used and the settings in which participants were observed. These results highlight the need for further studies of second-generation basal insulin analogs that are designed to capture the standard metrics proposed by the TIR consensus group, with additional consideration given to sample size and study duration.

Chronotherapeutic efficacy of suvorexant on sleep quality and metabolic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes and insomnia

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the chronotherapeutic efficacy of suvorexant on subjective sleep parameters and metabolic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes and insomnia.

METHODS

Thirteen patients with type 2 diabetes who met the Pittsburg Sleep Quality index criteria for primary insomnia took suvorexant 20 mg/day (15 mg/day for ≥65 years) for 14 ± 2 weeks. The following parameters were assessed before and after the treatment: sleep diary for sleep duration and quality (i.e., sleep onset latency, waking after sleep onset, and sleep efficiency [sSE]), Insomnia Severity Index, clinical and biochemical data, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and validated self-administered questionnaire on food intake.

RESULTS

Suvorexant significantly improved sSE, abdominal circumference, and sucrose intake (all p < 0.05), but did not change HbA1c, CGM parameters, or body weight. Correlation analysis revealed that changes in sSE were associated with those in HbA1c and body weight (r = -0.61 and r = -0.66, respectively; both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Suvorexant significantly improved sleep quality and obesity-associated parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes in 14 weeks. Improvements in sleep quality were associated with improvements in glycemic control. Sleep disorder treatment using suvorexant may provide metabolic benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Glycemic variability: adverse clinical outcomes and how to improve it?

Glycemic variability (GV), defined as an integral component of glucose homoeostasis, is emerging as an important metric to consider when assessing glycemic control in clinical practice. Although it remains yet no consensus, accumulating evidence has suggested that GV, representing either short-term (with-day and between-day variability) or long-term GV, was associated with an increased risk of diabetic macrovascular and microvascular complications, hypoglycemia, mortality rates and other adverse clinical outcomes. In this review, we summarize the adverse clinical outcomes of GV and discuss the beneficial measures, including continuous glucose monitoring, drugs, dietary interventions and exercise training, to improve it, aiming at better addressing the challenging aspect of blood glucose management.

Different amounts of moderate to vigorous physical activity and change in glycemic variability in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: is there dose-response relationship?

OBJECTIVE

To identify the level of physical activity and glycemic variability of adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus and to compare glycemic variability on days with different amounts of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A sample of 34 subjects aged 10 to 15 years, 18 (52.94%) female; age: 13.04 ± 1.94; HbA1c: 9.76 ± 1.51. Physical activity was measured by wGT3X accelerometer. The glucose data were obtained using continuous glucose monitoring, and the following glycemic variability measures were calculated: standard deviation (SD), low blood glucose index (LBGI), high blood glucose index (HBGI), mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE), glycemic risk assessment in diabetes equation (GRADE) and coefficient of variation (CV). The most and least active days (the days with greater and lesser time dedicated to physical activities of moderate to vigorous intensity, respectively) were identified. In addition, based on the whole period of accelerometer use, daily means of time spent in MVPA were identified among participants, who were then divided into three groups: up to 100 minutes; from 101 to 200 minutes and above 201 minutes. Then, the measures of glycemic variability were compared among the most and least active days and among the groups too.

RESULTS

The amount of MVPA was significantly different between the days evaluated (237.49 ± 93.29 vs. 125.21 ± 58.10 minutes), but glycemic variability measures did not present a significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Despite the significant differences in the amount of MVPA between the two days evaluated, the glycemic variability did not change significantly. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2020;64(3):312-8.

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 and insulin glargine U100 in combination with meal-time bolus insulin in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, randomized controlled study

The short-term efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 (IDeg) in patients with type 2 diabetes have not been reported widely. We compared insulin IDeg and insulin glargine U100 (IGla) for glycemic control and glucose variability in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. In an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 74 patients were randomly assigned to either the IDeg (36 patients) or IGla (38 patients) group and were administered with basal-bolus therapy during hospitalization. Following the start of the treatment, on day 11, glucose variability was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring. A fasting blood glucose level of 110 mg/dL and 2-hour postprandial blood glucose level of 180 mg/dL throughout at least one day during the observation period were achieved in 31.3% (10/32) and 30.6% (11/36) of the patients in the IDeg and IGla groups, respectively. The 6-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profiles showed a significant difference between the two groups. On day 7, the intra-day variation was larger in the IDeg group than in the IGla group. The incidence of hypoglycemia or glucose variability was comparable in the two groups. This study suggests that short-term efficacy and safety of IDeg and IGla in patients with type 2 diabetes during the initial phase of basal-bolus therapy were comparable, and these results can help in deciding which treatment to opt for.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (twice-daily injections), insulin glargine 300 U/mL, and insulin glulisine (basal-bolus therapy)

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/aspart (IDegAsp) twice-daily injections with insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin glulisine basal-bolus therapy (Gla300/Glu) using insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) and insulin glulisine (Glu).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were treated with IDegAsp twice-daily injections; achievement of target preprandial glucose concentration of 100-130 mg/dL at breakfast and supper was determined using a wearable flash glucose monitoring system. Patients were later switched to Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy before breakfast and before supper. Data were collected on days 2-4 and days 12-14 for each treatment period. The study's primary efficacy end-point was the mean percentage of time with a target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, and safety end-points were the mean percentage of time with hypoglycemia having glucose levels <70 mg/dL, clinically important hypoglycemia with glucose levels <54 mg/dL and nocturnal (00.00-06.00) hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Considering efficacy, the mean percentage of time for the target glucose range of IDegAsp was significantly lower than that of Gla300/Glu (73.1 [69.4-81.1] vs 84.2 [80.2-93.1], P = 0.001). Considering safety, the mean percentages of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL; 2.1 [0.0-9.4] vs 14.4 [4.4-22.3]), clinically important hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL; 0.0 [0.0-0.2] vs 1.9 [0.0-5.6]) and nocturnal (00.00-06.00 hours) hypoglycemia (0.5 [0.0-5.9] vs 8.9 [3.1-11.8]) of Gla300/Glu were significantly lower than those of IDegAsp (P = 0.012, 0.036 and 0.007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with the IDegAsp twice-daily injections, Gla300/Glu basal-bolus therapy might achieve more effective glycemic control without hypoglycemic risk.

A View Beyond HbA1c: Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) is used as an index of average blood glucose measurement over a period of months and is a mainstay of blood glucose monitoring. This metric is easy to measure and relatively inexpensive to obtain, and it predicts diabetes-related microvascular complications. However, HbA1c provides only an approximate measure of glucose control; it does not address short-term glycemic variability (GV) or hypoglycemic events. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a tool which helps clinicians and people with diabetes to overcome the limitations of HbA1c in diabetes management. Time spent in the glycemic target range and time spent in hypoglycemia are the main CGM metrics that provide a more personalized approach to diabetes management. Moreover, the glucose management indicator (GMI), which calculates an approximate HbA1c level based on the average CGM-driven glucose level, facilitates individual decision-making when the laboratory-measured HbA1c and estimated HbA1c are discordant. GV, on the other hand, is a measure of swings in blood glucose levels over hours or days and may contribute to diabetes-related complications. In addition, addressing GV is a major challenge during the optimization of glycemia. The degree of GV is associated with the frequency, duration, and severity of the hypoglycemic events. Many factors affect GV in a patient, including lifestyle, diet, the presence of comorbidities, and diabetes therapy. Recent evidence supports the use of some glucose-lowering agents to improve GV, such as the new ultra-long acting insulin analogs, as these agents have a smoother pharmacodynamic profile and improve glycemic control with fewer fluctuations and fewer nocturnal hypoglycemic events. These newer glucose-lowering agents (such as incretin hormones or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) can also reduce the degree of GV. However, randomized trials are needed to evaluate the effect of GV on important diabetes outcomes. In this review, we discuss the role of HbA1c as a measure of glycemic control and its limitations. We also explore additional glycemic metrics, with a focus on time (duration) in glucose target range, time (duration) in hypoglycemia, GV, GMI, and their correlation with clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, open-label, cross-over study using continuous glucose monitoring profiles

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Compared with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla100), glargine 300 U/mL (Gla300) and degludec (Deg) - the ultralong-acting insulins - reportedly have more stable effects and reduce the risk of hypoglycemia. Currently, they are considered to be the most useful basal insulins. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Gla300 and Deg on glycemic control using continuous glucose monitoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, parallel-group, two-period, cross-over study, 30 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to once-daily Gla300 followed by Deg with the same units (n = 15) or vice versa (n = 15). The primary end-points of this study were the mean percentage of time within the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL as efficacy and hypoglycemia of <70 mg/dL as safety indicators, as measured using continuous glucose monitoring during each treatment period.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of time within the target glucose range was not different between Gla300 and Deg (77.8 ± 19.2 vs 76.9 ± 18.3%, P = 0.848). However, the mean percentage of time of hypoglycemia with Gla300 was significantly lower than that of Deg (1.3 ± 2.7 vs 5.5 ± 6.4%, P = 0.002). In the secondary safety end-points, the mean percentage of time of severe hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) or nocturnal hypoglycemia with Gla300 was also significantly lower than that of Deg.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed the comparable efficacy of Gla300 and Deg on glycemic control; however, the risk of hypoglycemia was markedly lower for Gla300 than for Deg.

Mental distress and health-related quality of life among type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients using self-monitoring of blood glucose: A cross-sectional questionnaire study in Japan

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The present multicenter, cross-sectional survey was initiated to evaluate self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)-associated mental distress among patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey was carried out in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes using SMBG recruited from 42 medical institutions. Profiles of Mood States 2 and diabetes therapy-related quality of life questionnaires were used to evaluate mood status and health-related quality of life. Two original questionnaires were also developed to evaluate SMBG 'importance,' 'painfulness' and 'confidence' among patients, and to evaluate physician attitudes to SMBG use.

RESULTS

Questionnaires from 517 type 1 diabetes and 1,648 type 2 diabetes patients showed that 46.0% of type 1 diabetes and 37.5% of type 2 diabetes patients reported 'painfulness,' and that these patients reporting 'painfulness' showed significantly higher Profiles of Mood States 2 scores, lower diabetes therapy-related quality of life scores and higher glycated hemoglobin compared with those not reporting 'painfulness,' whereas the number of their daily SMBG tests were comparable. Patients reporting 'painfulness' also reported that SMBG use was significantly less important. Whether or not patients recognized the importance of SMBG use was well correlated with the frequency of physicians checking patient diaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients reporting 'painfulness' in SMBG use had more mental distress, lower health-related quality of life and higher glycated hemoglobin regardless of their number of daily SMBG tests. The importance of SMBG use was recognized less by patients experiencing pain, and the importance of SMBG use was recognized more in medical institutions in which physicians regularly checked SMBG diaries to provide meaningful feedback to patients in clinical settings.

Switching From Glargine to Degludec: The Effect on Metabolic Control and Safety During 1-Year of Real Clinical Practice in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes

Background/Objective: Insulin degludec (IDeg) is an ultra-long-acting analog with less daily variability compared to other basal insulins. In this retrospective study we examined 1-year efficacy and safety of IDeg in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Subjects/Methods: Thirty-seven patients [11.7 ± 4.22 years; T1D duration 4.97 ± 3.63 years; once-daily glargine (IGlar) by at least 1 year] were switched to once-daily IDeg because of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.5% and/or reported physical pain at IGlar injection. Changes in HbA1c, 30-day mean fasting plasma glucose (mean FPG), daily insulin dose, and severe hypoglycemia rates were collected at basal insulin switch (T0), 3-months (T1), 6-months (T2), and 12-months (T3) after IDeg was started. Results: In patients with HbA1c >7.5% at T0 we found a decrease in HbA1c values (%) from 8.46 ± 0.53 to 7.89 ± 0.72 at T1 (p = 0.008) and 7.97 ± 0.89 at T2 (p = 0.035). At T3, 38.9% of patients had HbA1c ≤ 7.5%. Mean FPG levels significantly decreased at T2 (p = 0.043). In the overall study population, we documented an increase in IDeg dose (+12.5% at T3; p < 0.001) and a decrease in mealtime insulin dose (-11.6% at T3; p = 0.001) after switch. HbA1c levels were unchanged. No episode of severe hypoglycemia was reported. Conclusions: Our data in children and adolescents with T1D suggest that IDeg dose should be increased by 12% and mealtime insulin doses should be lowered by 11% for patients who previously received IGlar. IDeg might be considered useful and well tolerated and it seems to improve the glycemic control compared to IGlar, mainly in patients with poor glycemic control.

Reduction of glycemic variability with Degludec insulin in patients with unstable diabetes

Introduction

Degludec (IDeg) is an ultralong-acting insulin, with stable pharmacodynamic profile which leads to lower fluctuations in glucose levels. The effect of IDeg has not been specifically assessed in patients with unstable diabetes, defined as increased glycemic variability (GV).

Methods

A prospective before-after pilot study was conducted, including patients managed at Hospital Universitario San Ignacio in Bogotá, Colombia. The impact of the switch from a Glargine or Detemir insulin to a basal insulin regimen with IDeg for 12 weeks on GV measured by continuous glucose monitoring, on A1c levels, and on the incidence of episodes of global and nocturnal hypoglycemia was assessed in a group of patients with (coefficient of variation >34%) or without increased basal GV using a Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis.

Results

60 patients with basal bolus therapy and history of hypoglycemia were included. 18 patients had High GV (HGV). In this group a significant reduction of 11.1% of CV (95% CI: 6.3, 15.9, p = 0.01) was found. GEE analysis confirmed a higher impact over time on patients with HGV (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with at least 1 episode of hypoglycemia decreased from 66.6% to 22.2% (p = 0.02) and from 37.14% to 5.71% (p < 0.01) for global and nocturnal hypoglycemia, respectively. Changes were not significant in patients with low GV. A reduction of A1c was observed in both groups (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The results suggest that treatment with IDeg reduces GV, A1c levels and the incidence of global and nocturnal hypoglycemia events in patients with HGV, but not in patients with low GV.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec versus Insulin Glargine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Fifteen Clinical Trials

AIMS

Insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine (IGlar) are both proved to be effective in diabetes. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of IDeg versus IGlar.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs were identified. The combined data showed that the decrease in the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level was slightly different, and the proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c < 7% was similar between the IDeg and IGlar groups. Further, a statistically significant decrease in the fasting plasma glucose level was observed in the IDeg group as compared to the IGlar group. In patients with T2DM, IDeg was associated with lower rates of overall hypoglycemia. Nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower in the case of IDeg than in the case of IGlar in both T1DM and T2DM patients. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IGlar, IDeg is associated with equivalent glycemic control and a statistically significantly lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM and T2DM. In T2DM patients, IDeg also provides better results in terms of overall hypoglycemia.