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

Effectiveness of switching from first-generation basal insulin to Glargine 300 U/mL in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: results from the ISPED CARD database

AIMS

Glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) has been recently approved for use in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, real-world effectiveness data are scarce, and aim of this analysis was to assess clinical outcomes in young patients with T1D switching from 1st generation basal insulin (1BI) to Gla-300.

METHODS

ISPED CARD is a retrospective, multicenter study, based on data anonymously extracted from Electronic Medical Records. The study involved a network of 20 pediatric diabetes centers. Data on all patients aged < 18 years with T1D switching from 1BI to Gla-300 were analyzed to assess clinical characteristics at the switch and changes after 6 and 12 months in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), and standardized body mass index (BMI/SDS). Titration of basal and short-acting insulin doses was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 200 patients were identified. The mean age at the switch to Gla-300 was 13 years, and mean duration of diabetes was 3.9 years. Average HbA1c levels at switch were 8.8%. After 6 months, HbA1c levels decreased by - 0.88% (95% CI - 1.28; - 0.48; p < 0.0001). The benefit was maintained after 12 months from the switch (mean reduction of HbA1c levels - 0.80%, 95% CI - 1.25; - 0.35, p = 0.0006). Trends of reduction in FBG levels were also evidenced both at 6 months and 12 months. No significant changes in short-acting and basal insulin doses were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides the first real-world evidence of the effectiveness of Gla-300 in children and adolescents with T1D previously treated with 1BI. The benefits in terms of HbA1c levels reduction were substantial, and sustained after 12 months. Additional benefits can be expected by improving the titration of insulin doses.

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

WHAT IS KNOWN

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

WHAT IS NEW

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

Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Therapy in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the second-generation basal insulin glargine 300 Units/mL (Gla-300) may be of benefit in the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Gla-300 provides a stable and sustained time-action profile, which is associated with glycaemic control and flexible dosing schedule. This review summarises the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of Gla-300 in children and adolescents with T1DM. Gla-300 is as effective as the first-generation basal insulin glargine 100 Units/mL (Gla-100), a standard of care for patients with diabetes in reducing HbA1c, and shows a lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia in children and adolescents with T1DM. However, Gla-300 and Gla-100 are not bioequivalent and are not directly interchangeable. Real-world studies on patients aged 6-17 years are limited. To date, only one small study assessed the effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 in newly diagnosed T1DM paediatric patients, confirming the treatment safety and effectiveness of Gla-300 in clinical practice. Gla-300 is a longer-acting basal insulin alternative in the management of children (aged ≥ 6 years) and adolescents with T1DM.

Significance of "Time below Range" as a Glycemic Marker Derived from Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Japanese Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the frequencies of various glycemic markers derived from continuous glucose monitoring in Japanese children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and assessed the significance of hypoglycemia duration.

METHODS

We enrolled 85 children and adolescents (36 boys and 49 girls) with type 1 diabetes who used FreeStyle® Libre in the present study. Frequencies of blood glucose levels as time within target range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL), time below target range (TBR; <70 mg/dL), time below extreme hypoglycemia range (TBER; <54 mg/dL), and time above range (TAR; >180 mg/dL) were assessed during a 3-month study period. Furthermore, we evaluated the intraday frequencies of TBR and TBER.

RESULTS

The mean frequencies of TIR, TBR, and TAR were 52.7 ± 11.3%, 10.8 ± 5.4%, and 36.5 ± 10.8%, respectively, whereas the mean frequency of TBER was 1.1 ± 0.9% (0-3.0%); there was no clinical episode of severe hypoglycemia. The mean frequency of TBR was significantly greater in 0-6 h (16.9 ± 5.2%) than in 6-12 h (7.8 ± 2.9%) and 18-24 h (6.8 ± 4.8%; p < 0.01) time zones, respectively.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

We found similar TIR and comparatively higher TBR frequencies, particularly during sleep, than those that were previously reported. Possible reasons for the higher frequency of TBR include differences in the quality of insulin treatment and diabetes care between the present study and the European studies. The utilization of advanced technologies, such as a predictive low-glucose suspend-function pump or closed-loop therapy, can reduce the frequency of TBR, with a consequent increase in TIR frequency and comprehensive improvement in glycemic control.

(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.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glargine 300 Units/mL (Gla-300) Versus Insulin Glargine 100 Units/mL (Gla-100) in Children and Adolescents (6-17 years) With Type 1 Diabetes: Results of the EDITION JUNIOR Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) and 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in children and adolescents (6-17 years old) with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

EDITION JUNIOR was a noninferiority, international, open-label, two-arm, parallel-group, phase 3b trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 to Gla-300 or Gla-100, titrated to achieve fasting self-monitored plasma glucose levels of 90-130 mg/dL (5.0-7.2 mmol/L), with continuation of prior prandial insulin. The primary end point was change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26. Other assessments included change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia with ketosis, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In 463 randomized participants (Gla-300, n = 233; Gla-100, n = 230), comparable least squares (LS) mean (SE) reductions in HbA_1c were observed from baseline to week 26 (-0.40% [0.06%] for both groups), with LS mean between-group difference of 0.004% (95% CI -0.17 to 0.18), confirming noninferiority at the prespecified 0.3% (3.3 mmol/mol) margin. Mean FPG change from baseline to week 26 was also similar between groups. During the 6-month treatment period, incidence and event rates of severe or documented (≤70 mg/dL [≤3.9 mmol/L]) hypoglycemia were similar between groups. Incidence of severe hypoglycemia was 6.0% with Gla-300 and 8.8% with Gla-100 (relative risk 0.68 [95% CI 0.35-1.30]). Incidence of any hyperglycemia with ketosis was 6.4% with Gla-300 and 11.8% with Gla-100.

CONCLUSIONS

Gla-300 provided similar glycemic control and safety profiles to Gla-100 in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, indicating that Gla-300 is a suitable therapeutic option in this population.

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.

The effect of Insulin Degludec on glycemic control in diabetic cats over a 12-month period

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a long-acting basal insulin recently developed for use in humans. This study aimed to investigate the effects of IDeg on glycemic control in diabetic cats. Changes in body weight, IDeg dosage, and glycated albumin (GA) were evaluated at 0, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following initiation of IDeg. A significant decrease in GA was observed and a mean GA level below 25% was achieved between 3 and 12 months. Furthermore, a significant increase in body weight was observed between 3 and 12 months. The mean IDeg dose was 0.75 ± 0.68 IU/kg/day at 12 months. Taken together, long-term glycemic control was successfully achieved in diabetic cats using IDeg.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long-acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I² statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine.

Evolving Pharmacotherapeutic Strategies for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Despite pharmacotherapeutic advancements in the management of type 1 diabetes mellitus during the past several decades, patients struggle to achieve glycemic goals. Additionally, hypoglycemia, especially in extremes of age, decreases quality of life. The lack of optimal glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia are multifactorial. Nevertheless, endeavors aiming to develop pharmacotherapeutic options with enhanced pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical profiles continue. This review article discusses recent ventures in 3 categories of insulin, non-insulin, and glucagon products.

Time-action profiles of insulin degludec in healthy dogs and its effects on glycemic control in diabetic dogs

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a new insulin formulation that facilitates long-term control of glucose level in humans. In this study, we investigated the effects of IDeg on glycemic control in dogs. Its time-action profiles were monitored in healthy dogs using an artificial pancreas apparatus under euglycemic conditions. At 9.0-13.5 hr post-IDeg injection, an indistinct peak of glucose level was detected. Moreover, the action of IDeg was persistent for >20 hr. Both IDeg and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH) lowered blood glucose concentrations in diabetic dogs, but IDeg caused postprandial hyperglycemia and a somewhat lower preprandial glucose level than that caused by NPH. IDeg might be ineffective in concurrently preventing postprandial hyperglycemia and preprandial hypoglycemia in a single-agent administration.

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.

Real-world efficacy and safety of insulin degludec with mealtime rapid-acting insulin in type 1 diabetes in Indian pediatric population

Background

Insulin Degludec (IDeg) is a new ultra-long-acting basal insulin that has not been yet evaluated in Indian pediatric population. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IDeg as basal-bolus therapy in Indian pediatric patients affected by type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Methods

A total of 30 pediatric and adolescent patients (17 boys, 13 girls; 22 were pre-pubertal) with T1DM who were on IDeg once daily participated in the study. All the patients received IDeg for at least 26 weeks along with rapid-acting mealtime insulin and their pre- and post-baseline characteristics (anthropometric data (BMI), age, duration of diabetes), metabolic (HbA1C), insulin requirement (unit/kg body weight per day) and number of hypoglycemia episodes were recorded along with the daily self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Results

There was a significant decline in HbA1c, FPG and bolus insulin dose from baseline to 26 weeks in the overall population (HbA1c: 9.65 ± 1.998% to 8.60 ± 1.631%, P = 0.0014; FPG: 156.93 ± 42.373 mg/dL to 109.37 ± 28.531 mg/dL, P = 0.000004; bolus insulin dose: 0.49 ± 0.208 U/kg/day to 0.35 ± 0.155 U/kg/day, P = 0.00032). The basal insulin dose was significantly higher at 26 weeks compared to baseline dose (0.42 ± 0.134 U/kg/day to 0.46 ± 0.139 U/kg/day, P = 0.04219). There was no significant change in BMI at 26 weeks.None of the patients experienced any DKA episode for 26 weeks. 16.7% patients had experienced at least one symptomatic hypoglycemia episode. On CGMS among the patients who were shifted from Glargine to degludec hypoglycemia were reduced significantly (overall hypoglycemia: 1.92 ± 1.26 to 0.35 ± 0.49 episodes over 3 days, P = 0.0026 while nocturnal hypoglycemia: 0.92 ± 0.47 to 0.21 ± 0.42 episodes, P = 0.0021). None of the patients had severe hypoglycemia episode.

Conclusion

In our study IDeg is found to be safe and effective long-acting basal insulin that can be used in Indian pediatric population with T1DM. However further long term prospective studies are required to evaluate the long term effects.