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

Safety and glycemic control with insulin degludec use in clinical practice: results from a 3-year Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

Introduction

Insulin degludec (degludec) is a basal insulin with a long duration of action. This post-marketing surveillance study monitored safety and glycemic control during use of degludec for 3 years in normal clinical practice in Japan.

Materials and methods

This multicenter, open-label, observational study included patients with diabetes receiving degludec in Japan between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was incidence of adverse events occurring over 3 years of treatment. The pre-specified, secondary outcomes were severe hypoglycemic episodes and changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels.

Results

Of 4167 patients enrolled, 4022 were included in the safety assessments and 3918 in the assessments of glycemic control. Mean age was 58.9 years; 74.1% of patients had type 2 diabetes, and mean HbA1c at baseline was 8.7%. Adverse events and serious adverse events were observed in 19.1% and 8.9% of patients, respectively. Cardiac disorders and neoplasms were reported in 2.0% and 1.8% of patients, respectively, with the majority of these incidents reported as serious adverse events. Adverse drug reactions were seen in 8.0% of patients, mainly hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemic events were observed in 5.6% of patients, and severe hypoglycemic events in 1.7%. No serious allergic or injection-site reactions were seen. Respective changes (from baseline to 3 years' observation) in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels were - 0.55% and - 36.3 mg/dL, and 19.6% of patients reached HbA1c < 7.0%.

Conclusions

Using degludec for 3 years in normal clinical practice had a good safety and tolerability profile. Improvements in glycemic control were also seen.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-023-00657-7.

Safety and Clinical Outcomes of Insulin Degludec in Korean Patients with Diabetes in Real-World Practices: A Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) in a real-world population of Korean patients with diabetes requiring insulin therapy.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm, open-label, non-interventional study. Patients aged ≥ 12 months and treated with previous glucose-lowering medications were eligible to switch to IDeg. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and the secondary endpoints were changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial glucose (PPG), and target HbA1c < 7.0%.

RESULTS

In total, 3225 and 2450 patients were included in the safety analysis set (SAS) and effectiveness analysis set (EAS), respectively. The mean baseline HbA1c and duration of diabetes were 9.4% and 13.0 years, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 740 patients (22.9%); the majority were mild and resolved. Significant improvements were observed in HbA1c, FPG, and PPG at week 26 (all p < 0.0001). The target of HbA1c < 7% was achieved in 22.2% of patients at week 26.

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice, 26 weeks of IDeg treatment resulted in significant reductions in glycemic parameters with a low incidence of AEs in Korean patients with diabetes. No new safety signals were observed.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02779413) and the universal trial number is [U1111-1176-2287].

The use of long-acting insulin degludec in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in real clinical practice in Russia

BACKGROUND: Effective glycaemic control remains the most important task in managing the risks of Diabetes type 2 complications development. In this regard, the choice of insulin preparations with minimal variability of action is of utmost importance since this approach allows achieving the maximum treatment effectiveness and adequate safety level.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate insulin degludec treatment effect on glycemic control in adult patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) type 2 in a real-world clinical setting in the Russian Federation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The open prospective study was conducted in 2020–2021 in 35 clinical centers in 31 cities of the Russian Federation. The study included adult patients with type 2 DM treated according to Russian routine clinical practice. The prospective follow-up period was 26 weeks. The main study endpoints were changes in HbA1c level, fasting plasma glucose, insulin daily doses, number, and characteristics of different types of hypoglycaemia episodes and adverse events (AEs), and patient preferences compared to previous treatment.

RESULTS: The study enrolled 494 patients. By the end of follow-up period:

CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in glycemic control, accompanied by basal insulin dose decrease combined with the absence of severe episodes of hypoglycemia, and significant decrease of nonsevere episodes (total and nocturnal). These results led to a large proportion of patients wanting to continue insulin degludec treatment preferring the medicine over previous treatment.

The Effect of BMI on Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Parameters of Insulin Degludec: Results from an Euglycemic Glucose Clamp Study

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the effect of body mass index (BMI) on pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters of insulin degludec in healthy Chinese males, depending on an euglycemic glucose clamp study.

METHODS

Sixty-five healthy male subjects were divided into four groups according to quartile of BMI value. Group A: BMI ≤ 20.7 kg/m²; group B: 20.7 < BMI ≤ 22.5 kg/m²; group C: 22.5 < BMI ≤ 23.6 kg/m²; group D: BMI > 23.6 kg/m². Each volunteer received a single subcutaneous dose (0.4 U/kg) of insulin degludec and accepted a 24-h euglycemic glucose clamp study. The primary PK parameters were maximum observed drug concentration (C_max) and the area under the curve (AUC_INS) for the specified time intervals. The primary PD parameters were the time to the start of glucose infusion (T_onset), maximal glucose infusion rate (GIR_max) and area under the curve (AUC_GIR) for the specified time intervals. The differences of these PK/PD parameters were compared among groups.

RESULTS

C_max and the AUC of insulin (0-6 h, 6-12 h and 0-24 h) were more than onefold higher in group A than those in groups B, C, D, and the concentration-time curve of group A was significantly shifted to the left compared with the other three groups. The GIR_max, total AUC_GIR, and AUC_GIR for each time interval were significantly higher in group A than those in other three groups. The proportion of AUC_GIR in group A was the lowest proportion among four groups seen in the late stage. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that BMI was negatively correlated with AUC_GIR,_{0-24 h}.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec in healthy Chinese male subjects with BMI ≤ 20.7 kg/m² had a faster absorption, clearance, and a stronger glucose-lowering effect, but a steeper decrease of insulin action in the late stage after dosing.

Scientific advisory on nocturnal hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes: Recommendations from Indian experts

INTRODUCTION

Insulin is one of the commonly prescribed glucose lowering agents in diabetes. Hypoglycemia is the most common complication, and severe hypoglycemia is the most serious complication of insulin therapy. Almost half of all severe hypoglycemia episodes (HEs) occur at night. However, patients are often unaware of their nocturnal hypoglycaemia (NH) risk. Additionally, both healthcare professionals and patients find it difficult to manage NH. The purpose of this expert group meeting is to improve NH awareness and provide guidance for the physicians to recognize and manage NH.

METHOD

The panel of experts in an e-board deliberated extensively upon the available literature and guidelines on hypoglycemia and NH discussed the consensus on definition, detection, reporting, monitoring, treatment, and optimization of therapy in NH.

RESULT

& Conclusion: Though there are many guidelines on the management of HEs in patients with diabetes, very few touch the topic of NH. This scientific advisory on management of NH in insulin treated patients with diabetes is formulated to address this gap in understanding regarding management of NH. The experts provide recommendations for the nocturnal window, defining NH based on blood glucose values, recognition, prevention and management of NH.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec U100 versus insulin glargine U300 in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

BACKGROUND

Clinical differences between degludec U100 (Deg-100) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) were unknown.

AIM

To indirectly compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness between Deg-100 and Gla-300 in T1D adults via systematic review.

METHOD

Medline, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched (October 2021). Randomized controlled trials comparing Deg-100 or Gla-300 vs. glargine U100 in T1D adults (follow-up ≥ 12 weeks) were selected and analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted over a 1-year time horizon from societal perspectives.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. Efficacy analysis suggested that Deg-100 was non-inferior to Gla-300 in reducing HbA_1c (MD 0.03 [95% CI - 0.09 to 0.15]; P = 0.60), FPG (MD - 1.12 [- 2.19 to - 0.04]; P = 0.04), and pre-breakfast SMBG (MD - 0.71 [- 1.46 to 0.03]; P = 0.06). Safety analysis suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have lower rates of both severe (HR 0.44 [0.25-0.78]; P = 0.005) and nocturnal severe (HR 0.19 [0.08-0.44]; P < 0.001) hypoglycemia, with lower total (MD - 0.07 [- 0.13 to - 0.01]; P = 0.02) and basal (MD - 0.08 [- 0.12 to - 0.04]; P < 0.001) insulin doses compared with Gla-300. No significant differences were observed for other hypoglycemia outcomes, adverse events, serious adverse events, bolus insulin dose, and body weight. The CEA showed that Deg-100 appeared to be a dominant treatment in Japan (+ 0.0283 QALYs, ¥26,266 [$228] per patient) and the United States (+ 0.0267 QALYs, $986 per patient).

CONCLUSION

Low-certainty indirect evidence suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have a favorable reduction in rates of severe hypoglycemia and more cost-effective compared with Gla-300 in T1D adults.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 U/ml in Comparison with Insulin Degludec 100 U/ml Evaluated with Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemic Control in Routine Clinical Practice: The OneCARE Study

INTRODUCTION

Data regarding efficacy of second-generation basal insulins (BI) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) come from clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) compared to insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in terms of percentage of time in range (TIR); 70-180 mg/dl was obtained from CGM in sub-optimally controlled patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study included patients with T1D (> 3 years diabetes duration, HbA_1c ≥ 7.5%) who had switched from first-generation BI to Gla-300/IDeg-100 within the past 24 months according to physician discretion. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from clinical records and during study visit, and CGM data were collected prior to the visit.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-nine people with T1D were included [42.6 ± 13.4 (mean ± SD) years, 18.4 ± 10.4 years diabetes duration]; 104 received Gla-300, 95 IDeg-100. TIR 70-180 throughout whole day was similar in both groups, 52.4 ± 14.0 vs. 49.3 ± 13.9% Gla-300/IDeg-100, respectively. At night, TIR 70-180 and TIR 70-140 were significantly higher in the Gla-300 group compared to the IDeg-100 (52.4 vs. 46.2 and 31.8 vs. 26.9%, respectively, p = 0.0209 and p = 0.0182), and time above range (180) was significantly lower in the Gla-300 group (40.1% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.0199). Additional CGM glucometric data were comparable in both groups. Patient treatment satisfaction score assessed through the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was high and similar for both insulins.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study shows the effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 are more similar to than different from IDeg-100, with a slightly better nocturnal glucose profile, in sub-optimally controlled T1D patients switching from a first-generation BI.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Compared with a Conventional Premixed Insulin or Basal Insulin: A Meta-Analysis

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a novel co-formulation of 70% insulin degludec and 30% insulin aspart. The present meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IDegAsp compared with a conventional premixed insulin or basal insulin. We extracted data from citation databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, since inception to 2021. We calculated the mean differences for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), self-measured mean glucose, and postprandial glucose (PPG) and odds ratios for confirmed hypoglycemia events. Compared with twice-daily conventional premixed insulin, twice-daily IDegAsp showed a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced FPG and self-measured mean glucose levels. Furthermore, compared to once-daily basal insulin, once-daily IDegAsp had a similar effect on changes in HbA1c, but it significantly reduced self-measured mean glucose and PPG levels. The risk of overall confirmed hypoglycemia was similar between treatments; however, the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia events was significantly lower with IDegAsp than with conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin. Thus, IDegAsp was more effective than conventional premixed insulin and basal insulin at reducing blood glucose with fewer nocturnal hypoglycemia events.

Efficacy and safety among second-generation and other basal insulins in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of second-generation basal insulins (glargine U300 and degludec U100) vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation basal insulins (glargine U100 and detemir) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) adults.PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar (until January 2021) were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ≥ 12 weeks of follow-up comparing efficacy (HbA_1c) or safety (hypoglycemia and weight gain) between second-generation basal insulins vs. other basal insulins in T1D adults were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses were used to estimate risk ratio, hazard ratio, and mean difference. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to appraise evidence certainty.Eighteen RCTs (≥ 24 weeks of follow-up) involving 7283 randomized participants were included for main analysis. Moderate to high certainty evidence suggested that second-generation basal insulins showed equivalent HbA_1c reduction compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins. Compared with second-generation basal insulins, low to high certainty evidence suggested that NPH was associated with a higher risk of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia; NPH and first-generation basal insulins were associated with a higher rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic events. For the weight gain, glargine U300 was comparable to detemir (low certainty), but degludec U100 was greater than detemir (moderate certainty).In conclusion, second-generation basal insulins maintained equivalent efficacy of glycemic control (moderate to high certainty), with differences in safety (low to high certainty) compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins during ≥ 24 weeks of follow-up in T1D adults.

CONCENTRATED INSULINS: CLINICAL UPDATE OF THERAPEUTIC OPTIONS

Improved glycemic control is associated with a reduced risk of diabetic complications. Optimal management of patients with type 2 diabetes includes nutritional therapy, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy for glycemic control. Most patients with type 2 diabetes are initially managed with oral antidiabetic agents, but as β-cell function declines and the disease progresses, insulin therapy is frequently needed to maintain glycemic control. Insulin therapy given with multidose insulin injection regimen or by continuous insulin infusion is needed for patients with type 1 diabetes to achieve control. Obesity and its associated insulin resistance contribute to greater insulin requirements in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes to achieve glycemic control, creating a need for concentrated insulin. Concentrated insulin formulations can be prescribed as an alternative to 100 unit/mL insulin and provide the advantage of low injection volume, leading to less pain and possibly fewer insulin injections. This review includes a stepwise analysis of all currently available concentrated insulin products, analyzes the most up-to-date evidence, and presents this in combination with expert guidance and commentary in an effort to provide clinicians with a thorough overview of the characteristics and benefits of concentrated insulins in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes-instilling confidence when recommending, prescribing, and adjusting these medications. Abbreviations: A1C = glycated hemoglobin; β-cell = pancreatic betacell; BG = blood glucose; CI = confidence interval; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; MDI = multiple daily injections; NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; PD = pharmacodynamic; PK = pharmacokinetic; TDD = total daily dose; U100 = 100 units/mL; U200 = 200 units/mL; U300 = 300 units/mL; U500 = 500 units/mL; USD = United States dollars.

Drug-Coated Balloons versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients with In-Stent Restenosis: A Pair-Wise Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of drug-coated balloons (DCB) with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and the differential relative effect of DCB in patients with drug-eluting stents (DES)-ISR and bare metal stents (BMS)-ISR.

BACKGROUND

The efficiency and safety of DCB and EES need to be assessed for the treatment of ISR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all relevant studies. Angiographic results and clinical events were separately assessed. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed according to the type of restenosed stent.

RESULTS

Six randomized trials with 1134 patients were included. The overall pooled outcomes indicated that DCB was associated with lower minimum lumen diameter (mean difference (MD) = -0.17, 95% CI = -0.29 to -0.05, P = 0.006) and higher target lesion revascularization (risk ratio (RR) = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.36 to 4.18, P = 0.002) than EES. However, the subgroup meta-analyses showed that DCB was inferior to EES only in DES-ISR patients, with lower minimum lumen diameter (MD = -0.25, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.14, P < 0.001), higher percent diameter stenosis (MD = 5.37, 95% CI = 1.33 to 9.42, P = 0.009), more binary restenosis (RR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.20 to 3.58, P = 0.009), and higher incidence of target vessel revascularization (RR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.22 to 3.50, P = 0.007) and target lesion revascularization (RR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.22, P = 0.002). No differences in angiographic results and clinical events were found between DCB and EES in BMS-ISR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

DCB was inferior to EES in DES-ISR and comparable in BMS-ISR in terms of angiographic results and clinical events.

Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Versus Insulin Degludec for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in China

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) versus insulin degludec (IDeg) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A systematic search of English and Chinese electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IGlar with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM was performed, followed by a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IGlar versus IDeg. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness of IGlar versus IDeg. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the underlying parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The IGlar group showed a statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) from baseline compared to the IDeg group (mean difference [MD] 0.08%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.14%, P = 0.02). Body mass index (BMI) control was numerically better in the IGlar group than in the IDeg group (MD 0.07 kg/m², 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.14 kg/m², P  = 0.08). In terms of hypoglycemia, the incidence of non-severe overall hypoglycemia was comparable between the IDeg and IGlar patient groups (P  > 0.05), while the incidence of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (relative risk [RR 0.79], 95% CI 0.70-0.90, P < 0.01) and the event rates of non-severe overall (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) were lower in the IDeg group. The incidences and event rates of both severe overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were similar for the two groups (P  > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that IGlar is the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg, with a lifetime savings of 1004 Chinese yuan in direct medical costs and a net gain of 0.015 QALYs per patient. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

IGlar is a cost-saving option with incremental effectiveness compared with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM in China.

FUNDING

Sanofi China.

Efficacy and safety of the second generation basal insulin analogs in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A critical appraisal

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive disease, which requires insulin treatment when other management is no longer effective. Although, insulin plays a vital role in the treatment of diabetes, conventional basal insulins have certain limitations, which have led to the development of more stable and peak less analogues.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. first generation basal insulins, and the efficacy and safety of second generation vs. second generation basal insulins, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, from the evidence provided by head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed and MEDLINE, Scopus, BIOSIS, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection, from January 1966 to October 2018. Articles resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those articles were examined.

RESULTS

The efficacy among insulins evaluated was similar, however, second generation insulins cause a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to first generation insulins. A single study showed similar metabolic control with subtle differences in the risk of hypoglycemia among second generation insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The second-generation basal insulins result in metabolic control similar to first generation insulins, with lower risk of hypoglycemia. Second-generation insulins have comparable efficacy, with some differences in the risk of hypoglycemia.