Treatment with insulin detemir or NPH insulin in children aged 2-5 yr with type 1 diabetes mellitus

(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 Two studies were unpublished.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.

Insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes mellitus: getting better all the time

The treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus consists of external replacement of the functions of β cells in an attempt to achieve blood levels of glucose as close to the normal range as possible. This approach means that glucose sensing needs to be replaced and levels of insulin need to mimic physiological insulin-action profiles, including basal coverage and changes around meals. Training and educating patients are crucial for the achievement of good glycaemic control, but having insulin preparations with action profiles that provide stable basal insulin coverage and appropriate mealtime insulin peaks helps people with type 1 diabetes mellitus to live active lives without sacrificing tight glycaemic control. Insulin analogues enable patients to achieve this goal, as some have fast action profiles, and some have very slow action profiles, which gives people with type 1 diabetes mellitus the tools to achieve dynamic insulin-action profiles that enable tight glycaemic control with a risk of hypoglycaemia that is lower than that with human short-acting and long-acting insulins. This Review discusses the established and novel insulin analogues that are used to treat patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and provides insights into the future development of insulin analogues.

Development of Insulin Detemir/Insulin Aspart Cross-Reacting Antibodies Following Treatment with Insulin Detemir: 104-week Study in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Aged 2-16 Years

BACKGROUND

To study the long-term development (104 weeks) of insulin antibodies during treatment with insulin detemir (IDet) and insulin aspart (IAsp) in children with type 1 diabetes aged 2-16 years.

METHODS

A 52-week, two-arm, randomized trial comparing IDet and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, both in combination with IAsp, was followed by a one-arm, 52-week extension trial of the IDet + IAsp arm. The present analysis was conducted in children who completed the randomized trial and entered into the extension trial.

RESULTS

Of the 177 children randomized to IDet treatment, 146 entered the extension trial. IDet-IAsp cross-reacting antibodies peaked within the first 39 weeks of treatment before gradually declining. A similar pattern was seen for IDet-specific and IAsp-specific antibodies. At end of trial (EOT), no correlation was observed between the level of IDet-specific or IAsp-specific antibodies or IDet-IAsp cross-reacting antibodies and either glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or basal insulin dose. Mean HbA1c was stable during the treatment period, with a slight increase over time from 8.41% (68.4 mmol/mol) at baseline to 8.74% (72 mmol/mol) at EOT. Mean IDet dose increased from 0.43 U/kg at baseline to 0.66 U/kg at EOT. Mean IAsp dose increased from 0.46 U/kg to 0.51 U/kg at EOT.

CONCLUSION

Although treatment with IDet and IAsp is associated with development of specific and cross-reacting antibodies, no correlation between insulin antibodies and basal insulin dose or HbA1c was found.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00435019 and NCT00623194.

The Impact of Technology on Current Diabetes Management

Technological innovations have revolutionized the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Although technological advances can potentially improve diabetes outcomes, maintenance of target glycemic control, at the present time, remains largely dependent on patient and family motivation, competence, and adherence to daily diabetes care requirements. Trials of closed loop or "artificial pancreas" technology show great promise to automate insulin delivery and achieve near normal glucose control and reduced hypoglycemia with minimal patient intervention.

An update on the pharmacotherapy options for pediatric diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus is a frequent endocrine disease during childhood and adolescence. Achieving a good glycemic control is of paramount importance to avoid short- and long-term complications and to allow a normal growth and quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

This review offers an update on current available treatment strategies for type 1 and type 2 diabetes approved for use in children and adolescents.

EXPERT OPINION

Although many progresses have been made in the field of diabetes management in children and adolescents, there are still several problems to deal with. With regard to type 1 diabetes, insulin remains the main and essential therapeutic strategy. However, the main issue is to develop a system that allows more physiological insulin coverage and reduces the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Adjunct therapies would be invaluable for patients struggling to achieve an acceptable glycemic control. Treatment of type 2 diabetes is based on lifestyle interventions and metformin is the first-line drug for children older than 10 years. As for type 1 diabetes, there is a strong need for developing new drugs to be used alone or in combination.

A randomized trial comparing the rate of hypoglycemia--assessed using continuous glucose monitoring--in 125 preschool children with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin glargine or NPH insulin (the PRESCHOOL study)

BACKGROUND

Avoidance of hypoglycemia is a key consideration in treating young children with type 1 diabetes (T1DM).

KEY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate hypoglycemia with insulin glargine vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in young children, using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

SUBJECTS

Children of 1 to <6 yr treated with once-daily glargine vs. once- or twice-daily NPH, with bolus insulin lispro/regular human insulin provided to all.

METHODS

Twenty-four week, multicenter, randomized, open-label study. Primary endpoint was event rate of composite hypoglycemia [symptomatic hypoglycemia, low CGM excursions (<3.9 mmol/L) or low fingerstick blood glucose (FSBG; <3.9 mmol/L)]. Noninferiority of glargine vs. NPH was assessed for the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five patients (mean age, 4.2 yr) were randomized to treatment (glargine, n = 61; NPH, n = 64). At baseline, mean HbA1c was 8.0 and 8.2% with glargine and NPH, respectively. Composite hypoglycemia episodes/100 patient-yr was 1.93 for glargine and 1.69 for NPH; glargine noninferiority was not met. Events/100 patient-yr of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 0.26 for glargine vs. 0.33 for NPH; low CGM excursions 0.75 vs. 0.72; and low FSBG 1.93 vs.1.68. There was a slight difference in between-group severe/nocturnal/severe nocturnal hypoglycemia and glycemic control. All glargine-treated patients received once-daily injections; on most study days NPH-treated patients received twice-daily injections.

CONCLUSIONS

While glargine noninferiority was not achieved, in young children with T1DM, there was a slight difference in hypoglycemia outcomes and glycemic control between glargine and NPH. Once-daily glargine may therefore be a feasible alternative basal insulin in young populations, in whom administering injections can be problematic.

A multicenter observational safety study in Swedish children and adolescents using insulin detemir for the treatment of type 1 diabetes

This 26-wk observational study in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Sweden investigated the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir (IDet) in newly diagnosed (ND) patients and those with established diabetes (ED) switching to IDet. A total of 159 patients initiated IDet as part of basal-bolus therapy, 59 in the ND stratum (mean age 9.7 yr) and 97 in the ED stratum (mean age 12.5 yr). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of severe adverse drug reactions; just one major hypoglycemic event occurred in a patient in the ND stratum during the study and one patient was withdrawn due to injection-site reactions. All other events were classified as mild. In the ED stratum, there was a reduction in hypoglycemic events in the 4 wk prior to study end from baseline (mean reduction of 2.46 events, not significant) and a significant reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia (mean reduction of 2.24 events, p = 0.0078). Glycemic control improved in the ND stratum as expected and, in the ED stratum, there was no significant change in HbA1c from baseline (mean reduction of -0.45%). At study end, mean daily IDet doses were 0.39 U/kg (ND) and 0.54 U/kg (ED). Weight increased by 5.7 and 2.0 kg in the ND and ED strata, respectively, and was within the normal limits for growing children. IDet provided good glycemic control and was well tolerated, with a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in a heterogeneous cohort of children and adolescents with T1D.

Metabolic control by insulin detemir in basal-bolus therapy: treat-to-target study in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir administered once vs. twice daily in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In this prospective, open-label, treat-to-target study, 37 patients [mean age 12.7 ± 3 yr; diabetes duration 4.2 ± 3 yr, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.8 ± 0.8%] were scheduled to receive insulin detemir once daily before breakfast, with pre-meal insulin aspart, for 16-20 wk. Detemir dose titration algorithm was based on age-related target fasting blood glucose levels during 4-8 wk. Patients achieving target range continued on once-daily detemir (Group A) if up-titration could not be done due to hypoglycemia patients were switched to twice-daily detemir (Group B).

RESULTS

Nineteen (51%) patients continued with once-daily detemir. HbA1c decreased significantly in both groups (A: -0.7%, p = 0.02; B: -0.8%, p = 0.004), without a significant difference between groups. The frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemic events/week decreased in both groups but a significant change was found only in Group A (10.9-2.7, p < 0.05 vs. 8.7-5.8, NS), with no change in frequency of severe hypoglycemic episodes in either group. No significant differences were found between and within groups for body mass index-standard deviation score, insulin requirement or treatment satisfaction. Group B patients were significantly younger than Group A patients (11.5 ± 2.3 vs.13.8 ± 3.2 yr, p = 0.01), with a higher percentage in active puberty (50 vs. 11%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Since twice-daily determir showed no clinical advantage over once-daily detemir, it appears reasonable to commence all children on once-daily detemir, taking into consideration that younger children and those in active puberty may require twice-daily therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00542399).

Insulin detemir: a review of its use in the management of diabetes mellitus

Insulin detemir (Levemir®) is a long-acting insulin analogue indicated for use as basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. The protracted action of insulin detemir is explained by increased self-association and reversible binding to albumin, which slows its systemic absorption from the injection site. In glucose-clamp studies, less within-patient variability in glucose-lowering effect was seen with insulin detemir than with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin or insulin glargine in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. The beneficial effect of insulin detemir on glycaemic control was shown in numerous randomized, open-label, multicentre trials, including when used as basal-bolus therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes and as basal therapy in addition to oral antidiabetic drugs in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. In terms of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)).[primary endpoint in most trials], insulin detemir was generally at least as effective as NPH insulin, insulin glargine or insulin lispro protamine suspension in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and at least as effective as biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Less within-patient variability in blood glucose was also generally seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Significantly less weight gain was generally seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes or with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin, insulin glargine, insulin lispro protamine suspension or biphasic insulin aspart (in one study) in patients with type 2 diabetes (i.e. insulin detemir generally had a weight-sparing effect). The addition of insulin detemir to liraglutide plus metformin improved glycaemic control in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control, although a significantly greater reduction in bodyweight was seen in patients receiving liraglutide plus metformin than in those receiving add-on therapy with insulin detemir. Results of two trials in patients aged 2-16 or 6-17 years (and a subgroup analysis in children aged 2-5 years) indicate that a basal-bolus insulin regimen incorporating insulin detemir appears to be a suitable option for use in paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Less within-patient variation in self-measured fasting plasma glucose was seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in one of the studies. Insulin detemir was noninferior to NPH insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in terms of the HbA(1c) value achieved at 36 gestational weeks. In addition, maternal and neonatal outcomes with insulin detemir were similar to those seen with NPH insulin. Subcutaneous insulin detemir was generally well tolerated in the treatment of patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, including in paediatric patients and pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. The majority of adverse events, including serious adverse events, reported in insulin detemir recipients were not considered to be related to the study drug. Insulin detemir was generally associated with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia than NPH insulin in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, particularly nocturnal minor hypoglycaemia. In conclusion, insulin detemir is a useful option for use as basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes.

Insulin analogues in children with Type 1 diabetes: a 52-week randomized clinical trial

AIMS

This 52-week, randomized, multinational, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial investigated the efficacy and safety of basal-bolus treatment with insulin detemir vs. NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin, in combination with insulin aspart, in subjects aged 2-16 years with Type 1 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Of the 347 randomized and exposed subjects, 177 received insulin detemir and 170 NPH insulin, both administered once or twice daily in combination with mealtime insulin aspart. Glycaemic measurements and weight were followed over 52 weeks.

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, insulin detemir was shown to be non-inferior to NPH insulin with regard to HbA(1c) [mean difference insulin detemir-NPH: 1.30 mmol/mol, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.92 (0.12%, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.36) in the full analysis set and 1.41 mmol/mol, 95% CI -1.26 to 4.08 (0.13%, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.37) in the per protocol analysis set]. Hypoglycaemic events per subject-year of exposure of 24-h and nocturnal hypoglycaemia were significantly lower with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin (rate ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.97, P = 0.028 and 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.84, P = 0.002, respectively). Weight standard deviation (sd) scores (body weight standardized by age and gender) decreased with insulin detemir, but increased slightly with NPH insulin (change: -0.12 vs. 0.04, P < 0.001). At end of the trial, median insulin doses were similar in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin detemir was non-inferior to NPH insulin after 52 weeks' treatment of children and adolescents aged 2-16 years, and was associated with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia, together with significantly lower weight sd score when compared with NPH insulin.

Usefulness of insulin detemir in Japanese children with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

This multicenter observational study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (detemir) for diabetes management in Japanese children and adolescents.

METHODS

Data from the Japanese Study Group of Insulin Therapy for Childhood and Adolescent Diabetes database were analyzed. Ninety children (32 boys, 58 girls; mean age, 11.9 ± 3.8 years) who transferred from a neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin or insulin glargine basal-bolus regimen to detemir basal-bolus therapy and who were observed for at least 12 months were identified. Clinical data obtained at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months were analyzed to determine the type of bolus insulin used, number and timing of detemir injections, detemir dose as a proportion of the total insulin dose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG) and frequency of severe hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Twelve months after switching to detemir, the detemir dose represented 39.8% of the total insulin dose, and 37.8% of patients were being treated with twice-daily injections. HbA1c and FBG were significantly reduced from baseline at 3 and 6 months but not at 12 months. Considering the seasonal HbA1c variation in the Japanese population, a separate analysis was performed using data for 65 children (21 boys, 44 girls; mean age, 11.6 ± 2.9 years) who switched to detemir during the winter. Subset analysis showed significant HbA1c reductions from baseline at all specified times. The incidence of severe hypoglycemia during detemir treatment was 4.4 episodes per 100 patient-years.

CONCLUSIONS

Detemir is an effective and safe basal insulin for diabetes management in Japanese children and adolescents.