The rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis with insulin degludec-based treatment compared with insulin detemir in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: An analysis of data from two randomized trials

Impact of school-supervised ultra-long-acting basal insulin injections on ketosis in youth with T1D and elevated haemoglobin A1c: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

In youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D), high haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels are associated with an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

AIMS

This study examined whether daily school-supervised basal insulin injections were feasible and if they reduced the risk of morning ketosis in children and adolescents with high HbA1c levels. We hypothesized that supervised glargine and degludec would reduce the risk of ketosis and that the prolonged action of degludec would protect from ketosis after consecutive days of unsupervised injections.

MATERIALS & METHODS

After a 2-4-week run-in, youth (10-18 years, HbA1c ≥ 8.5%) managing T1D with injections were randomized to school-supervised administration of degludec or glargine for 4 months. School nurses observed daily blood β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) and glucose checks. During COVID closures, the research team supervised procedures remotely.

RESULTS

Data from 28 youth (age 14.3 ± 2.3 years, HbA1c 11.4 ± 1.9%, 64% F) were analysed. School-supervised injections of both basal insulins for 1-4 days progressively lowered the percent of participants with elevated BHB. The percent of participants with elevated BHB (≥0.6 mmol/L) after 2 days of unsupervised basal insulin doses at home was greater in the glargine than degludec group but had a high p-value (17.2% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.3). HbA1c was unchanged in both groups.

DISCUSSION

In youth with T1D at high risk for DKA, daily supervised long-acting insulin administration decreased the probability of elevated ketone levels on subsequent school days, regardless of basal insulin type. A larger sample size may have demonstrated that the longer action profile of degludec would offer additional protection from ketosis during days of not attending school.

CONCLUSION

Engaging school-based caregivers in management of youth with T1D on injected insulin may decrease clinically significant ketosis and minimize acute complications of diabetes.

Reducing Diabetic Ketoacidosis Readmissions with a Hospital-School-Based Improvement Partnership

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). Baseline data showed 139 of 182 DKA readmissions (76.4%) were due to missed basal insulin dosing. The team used quality improvement tools to implement a process change around basal insulin. The project utilized insulin degludec and school-based nurses when missed basal insulin was noted as a main driver for readmission. The DKA readmission rate averaged 5.25 per month from January 2017 to April 2019. The rate decreased to 3.64 per month during the intervention from May 2019 to March 2020, a 31% reduction over 11 months. This standardized approach for patients with T1D readmitted with DKA, using a school-based intervention and insulin degludec, reduced the number of DKA readmissions. This method is safe and effective for lowering DKA readmissions due to missed basal insulin in areas with reliable school nursing.

Insulin Pump-related Inpatient Admissions in a National Sample of Youth With Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin pump use in type 1 diabetes management has significantly increased in recent years, but we have few data on its impact on inpatient admissions for acute diabetes complications.

METHODS

We used the 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2019 Kids' Inpatient Database to identify all-cause type 1 diabetes hospital admissions in those with and without documented insulin pump use and insulin pump failure. We described differences in (1) prevalence of acute diabetes complications, (2) severity of illness during hospitalization and disposition after discharge, and (3) length of stay (LOS) and inpatient costs.

RESULTS

We identified 228 474 all-cause admissions. Insulin pump use was documented in 7% of admissions, of which 20% were due to pump failure. The prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was 47% in pump nonusers, 39% in pump users, and 60% in those with pump failure. Admissions for hyperglycemia without DKA, hypoglycemia, sepsis, and soft tissue infections were rare and similar across all groups. Admissions with pump failure had a higher proportion of admissions classified as major severity of illness (14.7%) but had the lowest LOS (1.60 days, 95% CI 1.55-1.65) and healthcare costs ($13 078, 95% CI $12 549-$13 608).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increased prevalence of insulin pump in the United States, a minority of pediatric admissions documented insulin pump use, which may represent undercoding. DKA admission rates were lower among insulin pump users compared to pump nonusers. Improved accuracy in coding practices and other approaches to identify insulin pump users in administrative data are needed, as are interventions to mitigate risk for DKA.

(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.

Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is the end result of insulin deficiency in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). Loss of insulin production leads to profound catabolism with increased gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis, lipolysis, and muscle proteolysis causing hyperglycemia and osmotic diuresis. High levels of counter-regulatory hormones lead to enhanced ketogenesis and the release of 'ketone bodies' into the circulation, which dissociate to release hydrogen ions and cause an overwhelming acidosis. Dehydration, hyperglycemia, and ketoacidosis are the hallmarks of this condition. Treatment is effective repletion of insulin, fluids and electrolytes. Newer approaches to early diagnosis, treatment, and prevention may diminish the risk of DKA and its childhood complications including cerebral edema. However, the potential for some technical and pharmacologic advances in the management of T1D to increase DKA events must be recognized.

Insulin Degludec in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Is Newer Better? - A Retrospective Self-Control Case Series in Adolescents with a History of Diabetic Ketoacidosis

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is the longest-acting basal insulin available. Whether IDeg compared to shorter-acting basal insulins like insulin glargine U100 (IGlarU100) reduces the rate of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that adolescents with type 1 diabetes would have lower DKA rates and mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) when using IDeg as compared to IGlarU100.

METHODS

To avoid selection bias, we used self-control case series methodology. Adolescents with type 1 diabetes treated for DKA from January 2015 through December 2018 who switched basal insulin from IGlarU100 to IDeg were eligible for analysis. Thirty-five patients were included, each acting as their own control. Mean HbA1c and DKA rate for the 12 months prior to and after switching to IDeg were compared.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c prior to and after switching to IDeg was unchanged (97 ± 20 vs. 97 ± 21 mmol/mol [11.0 ± 1.8 vs. 11.0 ± 1.9%]). Median DKA rate (admissions/year) while on IGlar-U100 was 1 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1-2. After switching to IDeg, median DKA admission rate remained 1, however the IQR decreased to 0-1 (one-sided p value 0.0004). Median change in DKA rate was 1 fewer admission per year, with a maximum reduction of 3 admissions. Higher baseline rates of DKA increased the odds of a patient reducing his/her DKA rate by 1 admission per year or more.

CONCLUSIONS

Using IDeg for basal insulin in adolescent patients may decrease the rate of DKA relative to IGlarU100 despite no improvement in HbA1c and may be cost-effective.

Current status of insulin degludec in type 1 and type 2 diabetes based on randomized and observational trials

Insulin degludec is a new ultra-long-action basal insulin. Using treat-to-target protocols, controlled trials have shown comparable HbA_1c reductions with insulin degludec and comparators in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Most studies identify, however, better control of fasting plasma glucose with insulin degludec vs. either insulin glargine U100 or detemir, and all have consistently demonstrated clinically relevant decreases in (nocturnal) hypoglycaemic episodes. These characteristics have provided added therapeutic value for insulin degludec in clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this review is to discuss, within the context of randomized and observational studies, the clinical effects of insulin degludec use in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis with insulin degludec-based treatment compared with insulin detemir in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes: An analysis of data from two randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Historically, data on the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis have not been collected in clinical trials. However, it is clinically important to assess the rate of these events in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This question was addressed in two pediatric trials using insulin degludec (degludec).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of hyperglycemia and ketosis in two-phase 3b trials investigating degludec (Study 1) and degludec with insulin aspart (IDegAsp [Study 2]) vs insulin detemir (IDet).

SUBJECTS

Patients (aged 1-17 years inclusive) with T1D treated with insulin for ≥3 months.

METHODS

Study 1: patients were randomized to degludec once daily (OD) or IDet OD/twice daily (BID) for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week extension phase. Study 2: patients were randomized to IDegAsp OD or IDet OD/BID for 16 weeks. Bolus mealtime IAsp was included in both studies. In Study 1, hyperglycemia was recorded if plasma glucose (PG) was >11.1 mmol/L, with ketone measurement required with significant hyperglycemia (>14.0 mmol/L). In Study 2, hyperglycemia was recorded with PG >14.0 mmol/L where the subject looked/felt ill, with ketone measurement also required in these hyperglycemic patients. In this post hoc analysis, the hyperglycemia threshold was 14.0 mmol/L for uniformity.

RESULTS

Despite similar rates of hyperglycemia with degludec/IDegAsp compared with IDet, the rates of ketosis were lower with degludec/IDegAsp.

CONCLUSIONS

These trials, the first to systematically collect data on ketosis in pediatric patients with T1D, demonstrate the potential of degludec/IDegAsp to reduce rates of metabolic decompensation, compared with IDet.

Cost analysis of insulin degludec in comparison with insulin detemir in treatment of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the UK

OBJECTIVE

With healthcare systems under increasing financial pressure from costs associated with diabetes care, it is important to assess which treatments provide clinical benefits and represent best value. This study evaluated the annual costs of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin detemir (IDet) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using data from a randomized, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial-BEGIN YOUNG 1-annual costs with degludec versus IDet in children and adolescents aged 1-17 years with T1D were estimated, as costs of these insulins and hyperglycemia with ketosis events. Analyses by age group (1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years) and scenario (no ketosis benefit, no dose benefit, hyperglycemia with ketones >0.6 and >3.0 mmol/L and the additional costs of twice-daily IDet in 64% of patients) were also performed.

RESULTS

The mean annual cost per patient was estimated as £235.16 for degludec vs £382.91 for IDet, resulting in an annual saving of £147.75 per patient. These substantial cost savings were driven by relative reductions in the frequency of hyperglycemia with ketosis and basal insulin dose with degludec versus IDet. Annual savings in favor of degludec were observed across each age group (£122.63, £140.59 and £172.50 for 1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years age groups, respectively). Five scenario analyses further demonstrated the robustness of the results, which included no ketosis or dose benefits in favor of degludec.

CONCLUSIONS

Degludec provides appreciable annual cost savings compared with IDet in children and adolescents with T1D in a UK setting. While a cost-effectiveness analysis could incorporate the health impact of treatment complications better than the present cost analysis, the strong generalizability of the data from this study suggests that degludec can help healthcare providers to maximize health outcomes despite increasingly stringent budgets.