Degludec is superior to glargine in terms of daily glycemic variability in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Effects of insulin glargine U300 versus insulin degludec U100 on glycemic variability, hypoglycemia, and diet evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes: a retrospective cross-sectional study

The impacts of insulin degludec U100 (Deg-100) and insulin glargine U300 (Gla-300) on glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 1 diabetes, as well as the impact of major nutrient components on GV in these patients, remain unclear. This was an observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study. Type 1 diabetes mellitus patients treated with either Deg-100 or Gla-300 as basal insulin were enrolled. After the participants underwent continuous glucose monitoring, GV indices and major nutrient components were analyzed. Forty patients with type 1 diabetes were enrolled, and 20 participants used Deg-100, and 20 used Gla-300. There was no significant difference in major nutrient components between the two groups. Better GV indices of standard deviation, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, AUCn, M-value, CONGA1, CONGA2, and CONGA4 were noted in the Gla-300 group versus Deg-100 group. Compared with patients who received once-daily injection in the morning (QD), Deg-100 administration once daily at bedtime (HS) yielded a higher low blood glucose index during both day and nocturnal periods, indicating a higher risk of hypoglycemic events. By contrast, there were significantly lower levels of CONGA1, CONGA2, and CONGA4 during insulin Gla-300 QD administration than during HS administration, indicating a lower GV of a short interval. In this real-world study involving type 1 diabetes patients, Gla-300 appears to offer more stable glucose variability than Deg-100. Administering once-daily injections could lower the risk of hypoglycemia in the Deg-100 group and minimize GV in the Gla-300 group compared to bedtime injections.

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.

Total Chemical Synthesis of Palmitoyl-Conjugated Insulin

Commercially available insulins are manufactured by recombinant methods for the treatment of diabetes. Long-acting insulin drugs (e.g., detemir and degludec) are obtained by fatty acid conjugation at LysB29 ε-amine of insulin via acid-amide coupling. There are three amine groups in insulin, and they all react with fatty acids in alkaline conditions. Due to the lack of selectivity, such conjugation reactions produce non-desired byproducts. We designed and chemically synthesized a novel thiol-insulin scaffold (CysB²⁹-insulin II), by replacing the Lys^B29 residue in insulin with the Cys^B29 residue. Then, we conjugated a fatty acid moiety (palmitic acid, C16) to CysB²⁹-insulin II by a highly efficient and selective thiol-maleimide conjugation reaction. We obtained the target peptide (palmitoyl-insulin) rapidly within 5 min without significant byproducts. The palmitoyl-insulin is shown to be structurally similar to insulin and biologically active both in vitro and in vivo. Importantly, unlike native insulin, palmitoyl-insulin is slow and long-acting.

Changes of HbA1c variability after the switch to a longer-acting insulin analog in people with type 1 diabetes

This study investigated whether longer-acting basal analogs (insulin degludec and insulin glargine U300) could reduce visit-to-visit hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) variability in patients with type 1 diabetes. Ninety adults with type 1 diabetes for whom the basal insulin was switched to a longer-acting insulin analog were analyzed retrospectively. The coefficient of variation of HbA1c levels (CV-HbA1c) during the year before and after the switch was compared. The CV-HbA1c after the switch was not significantly different from that before the switch (4.39 ± 2.24% vs 4.25 ± 2.07%; P = 0.506). The linear regression model revealed that CV-HbA1c before the switch was independently associated with the change of CV-HbA1c (regression coefficient per standard deviation = -0.568, P < 0.001), whereas the other variables were not (all P > 0.05). In conclusion, CV-HbA1c remained unchanged after the switch on average, but CV-HbA1c before the switch was associated with the decrease of CV-HbA1c in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

Association of long-term visit-to-visit variability of HbA1c and fasting glycemia with hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

Self-management of blood glucose levels to avoid hypoglycemia is vital for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The association between specific metrics of glycemic variability (glycosylated hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] and fasting plasma glucose [FPG]) and severe hypoglycemia has not been fully studied in patients with T2DM.

Methods

In this post hoc analysis, patients with established T2DM with a high risk of cardiovascular disease were included in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the relationship between glycemic variability and hypoglycemia requiring medical assistance (HMA) and hypoglycemia requiring any third-party assistance (HAA). The prognostic value of HbA1c/FPG variability for our predefined outcomes was compared using Harrell's C method.

Results

After adjusting for confounders, each increase in HbA1c variability of 1 standard deviation (SD) indicated a higher risk of HAA (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.16; P < 0.01) and HMA events (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.03-1.20; P < 0.01). Meanwhile, each increase in FPG variability of 1 SD increased the risk of HAA (HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.31-1.49; P < 0.01) and HMA events (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.35-1.57; P < 0.01). Meanwhile, models, including FPG variability, had better prognostic value for our predefined outcomes than HbA1c variability (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Increased visit-to-visit variability in HbA1c and fasting glycemia is associated with a greater risk of severe hypoglycemic events in T2DM patients. FPG variability is a more sensitive indicator than HbA1c variability.

Trial registration

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000620.

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.

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.

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.

Day-to-day fasting self-monitored blood glucose variability is associated with risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the SWITCH Trials

AIMS

To investigate the association between day-to-day fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) variability and risk of hypoglycaemia in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and to compare day-to-day fasting SMBG variability between treatments with insulin degludec (degludec) and insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were retrieved from two double-blind, randomized, treat-to-target, two-period (32 weeks each) crossover trials of degludec vs glargine U100 in T1D (SWITCH 1, n = 501) and T2D (SWITCH 2, n = 720). Available fasting SMBGs were used to determine the standard deviation (SD) of day-to-day fasting SMBG variability for each patient and the treatment combination. The association between day-to-day fasting SMBG variability and overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia was analysed for the pooled population using linear regression, with fasting SMBG variability included as a three-level factor defined by population tertiles. Finally, day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was compared between treatments.

RESULTS

Linear regression showed that day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated with overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia risk in T1D and T2D (P < 0.05). Day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated (P < 0.01) with all categories of hypoglycaemia risk, with the exception of severe hypoglycaemia in T2D when analysed within tertiles. Degludec was associated with 4% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability than glargine U100 in T1D (P = 0.0082) and with 10% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability in T2D (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher day-to-day fasting SMBG variability is associated with an increased risk of overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia. Degludec has significantly lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability vs glargine U100.

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.

The potential effect of ultra-long insulin degludec on glycemic variability

Despite the therapeutic advances in the treatment of diabetes, metabolic control instability due to glycemic variability (GV) is frequently observed in patients with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy and is associated with hyperglycemic peaks and hypoglycemic episodes. Hyperglycemia associated with GV has been implicated in the development of chronic complications due to its pro-oxidative consequences. On the other hand, hypoglycemia can be associated with increased cardiovascular risk secondarily to adrenergic activation. The ultra-long-acting insulin analogue, insulin degludec (IDeg), presents a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect both in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes patients. In pharmacodynamic studies, IDeg has been associated with a lower variability in its insulin action than other alternatives for basal insulin, which might have clinical advantages for the stability of the glycemic control. The main objective of this review is to present pharmacological and clinical data regarding the efficacy and safety of IDeg for the treatment of diabetes focusing on its effects on GV and on hypoglycemia frequency.

The clinical effectiveness of insulin glargine in patients with Type I diabetes in Brazil: findings and implications

AIM

Published studies have challenged the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulins in Brazil with limited evidence of increased effectiveness despite considerably higher acquisition costs. However, still a controversy. Consequently, there is a need to address this.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of Type I diabetes patients receiving insulin glargine in Brazil following NPH insulin who met the criteria.

RESULTS

580 patients were enrolled. HbA_1c varied from 8.80 ± 1.98% in NPH insulin users to 8.54 ± 1.88% after insulin glargine for 6 months, which is not clinically significant. Frequency of glycemic control varied from 22.6% with NPH insulin to 26.2% with insulin glargine. No statistically significant difference was observed between controlled and still uncontrolled groups for all analyzed factors including type and frequency of insulin use and carbohydrate counting.

CONCLUSION

Limited differences between NPH insulins and insulin analogs in routine clinical care do not justify an appreciable cost difference.

Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Youth-Onset Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has long been accepted as a tool for managing glycemia in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and is receiving increased attention as a tool for monitoring glucose patterns in patients with other forms of diabetes, in particular type 2 diabetes (T2D). Recent studies in adults with T2D have shown benefits of CGM in the investigation of glycemic variability, as well as utility as a tool for improving glycemic control. The literature on CGM use in youth-onset T2D, however, is sparse. This paper reviews the various roles for CGM in T2D, with a focus on published reports of CGM use in youth-onset T2D. The gaps in knowledge are highlighted, along with a discussion regarding need for future studies of potential applications for CGM in this younger population.

RECENT FINDINGS

CGM systems provide insight into glycemic abnormalities in obese youth with and at risk for T2D. This technology has enabled examination of the relationship between free-living glycemic profiles and traditional diabetes screening tests, as well as markers of cardiometabolic risk in this high-risk population. Investigators are incorporating CGM technology into the study of T2D in youth, but interventional studies of CGM as a tool for glycemic control in youth-onset T2D are limited. Youth with T2D face a more aggressive disease than adults with T2D, and further studies utilizing advances in glucose monitoring technology to improve outcomes in this population are needed.

Retinal neurodegeneration in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: the role of glycemic variability

AIMS

Recent studies have identified neuroretinal abnormalities in persons affected by diabetes mellitus, before the onset of microvascular alterations. However, the role of glycemic variability (GV) on early retinal neurodegeneration is still not clarified.

METHODS

To explore the relationship between glycemic control and neuroretinal characteristics, 37 persons with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (Type 1 DM) divided into two groups with no signs (noRD) and with mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to 13 healthy control participants (C) were recruited. All persons underwent an optical coherence tomography with automatic segmentation of all neuroretinal layers. Measurements of mean of nasal (N)/temporal (T)/superior (S)/inferior (I) macular quadrants for individual layer were also calculated. Metabolic control was evaluated by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and indexes of GV were calculated from continuous glucose monitoring.

RESULTS

The difference among the three groups in terms of RNFL thickness was significantly dependent on quadrant (F(6;132) = 2.315; p = 0.037). This interaction was due to a specific difference in RNFL-N thickness, where both Type 1 DM groups showed a similar reduction versus C (-3.9 for noDR and -4.9 for NPDR), without any relevant difference between them (-1.0). Inner nuclear layer (INL) was increased in all quadrants in the two Type 1 DM groups compared to C (mean difference = 7.73; 95% CI: 0.32-15.14, p = 0.043; mean difference = 7.74; 95% CI: 0.33-15.15, p = 0.043, respectively). A negative correlation between RNFL-N and low blood glucose index (r = -0.382, p = 0.034) and positive correlation between INL and continuous overall net glycemic action -1, -2, -4 h (r = 0.40, p = 0.025; r = 0.39, p = 0.031; r = 0.41, p = 0.021, respectively) were observed in Type 1 DM patients. The triglycerides were positively and significantly correlated to INL (r = 0.48, p = 0.011), in Type 1 DM subjects. GV and triglycerides resulted both independent predictors of increased INL thickness. No correlation was found with HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

Early structural damage of neuroretina in persons with Type 1 DM patients is related to glucose fluctuations. GV should be addressed, even in the presence of a good metabolic control.

A randomized crossover study of the efficacy and safety of switching from insulin glargine to insulin degludec in children with type 1 diabetes

This study implemented a randomized crossover design to evaluate the efficacy and safety of switching from insulin glargine (IGlar) to insulin degludec (IDeg) in 18 children (11 males, 7 females; age 11.0 ± 0.5 years) with type 1 diabetes. All subjects had previously used IGlar once daily at bedtime. We compared fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c levels, frequencies of overall and nocturnal (2200 h - 0659 h) hypoglycemia, and basal insulin dose at the baseline with those measured during a 24-week period during which IGlar or IDeg was administered in combination with pre-meal rapid acting insulin analogues. IDeg was initially given at the same dose as IGlar but was subsequently titrated to achieve FPG levels of 90-140 mg/dL. There were no significant changes in FPG and HbA1c levels from the baseline during the 24-week study period with IGlar or IDeg. The daily basal insulin dose did not significantly differ with IGlar or IDeg. Although the frequencies of overall hypoglycemia were similar, nocturnal hypoglycemia significantly decreased at 12 and 24 weeks from the baseline with IDeg use (2 ± 0.4 vs. 0 ± 0.3, 0 ± 0.5 episodes/month, both P <0.05), whereas no significant change in the frequency of nocturnal hypoglycemia was observed with IGlar. No severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study period with either basal insulin analogues. These results suggest that IDeg, injected once at bedtime, may provide similar glycemic control as IGlar while better reducing the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes.

Role of continuous glucose monitoring for type 2 in diabetes management and research

The advent of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is a significant stride forward in our ability to better understand the glycemic status of our patients. Current clinical practice employs two forms of CGM: professional (retrospective or "masked") and personal (real-time) to evaluate and/or monitor glycemic control. Most studies using professional and personal CGM have been done in those with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, this technology is agnostic to the type of diabetes and can also be used in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The value of professional CGM in T2D for physicians, patients, and researchers is derived from its ability to: (1) to discover previously unknown hyper- and hypoglycemia (silent and symptomatic); (2) measure glycemic control directly rather than through the surrogate metric of hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) permitting the observation of a wide variety of metrics that include glycemic variability, the percent of time within, below and above target glucose levels, the severity of hypo- and hyperglycemia throughout the day and night; (3) provide actionable information for healthcare providers derived by the CGM report; (4) better manage patients on hemodialysis; and (5) effectively and efficiently analyze glycemic effects of new interventions whether they be pharmaceuticals (duration of action, pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy), devices, or psycho-educational. Personal CGM has also been successfully used in a small number of studies as a behavior modification tool in those with T2D. This comprehensive review describes the differences between professional and personal CGM and the evidence for the use of each form of CGM in T2D. Finally, the opinions of key professional societies on the use of CGM in T2D are presented.

Comparison of glycemic variability in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin degludec versus insulin glargine using continuous glucose monitoring: A randomized, cross-over, pilot study

AIMS

To compare glucose variability in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin glargine (IGla) versus insulin degludec (IDeg) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

METHODS

Thirteen patients with T1D were randomly assigned to receive IDeg once-daily followed by IGla twice-daily or vice versa. They were evaluated for glucose variability by CGM after >4weeks of treatment with either insulin, and then were crossed over to the other, and evaluated by CGM after >4weeks.

RESULTS

The total daily insulin dose (TDD) (U/kg/day) and the total daily basal insulin dose (U/kg/day) in the patients were significantly lower while taking IDeg than while taking IGla (mean [95% confidence interval] 0.72 [0.61-0.83] vs. 0.76 [0.64-0.88]; P=0.001, 0.29 [0.22-0.36] vs. 0.33 [0.26-0.40]; P=0.001), although no significant difference was noted in the patients while on IDeg versus while on IGla in 24-h mean glucose and SDs of 24-h glucose. Again, the range of postprandial glucose increase was not significantly different between the meals in the patients while taking IDeg (P=0.288) but significantly different in the patients while taking IGla (P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of once-daily IDeg leads not only to similar glycemic control to that seen with twice-daily IGla even in those who received IGla prior to the study, but also to significant decreases in TDD and long-acting basal insulin dose.