Dataset Information

Insulin degludec improves glycaemic control with lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk than insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in Type 1 diabetes (BEGIN(®) Basal-Bolus Type 1): 2-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The goal of this study was to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of the basal insulin analogue, insulin degludec with insulin glargine (both with insulin aspart) in Type 1 diabetes, over a 2-year time period.

Methods

This open-label trial comprised a 1-year main trial and a 1-year extension. Patients were randomized to once-daily insulin degludec or insulin glargine and titrated to pre-breakfast plasma glucose values of 3.9-4.9 mmol/l.

Results

The rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was 25% lower with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine (P = 0.02). Rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia and adverse events, and reductions in glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose were similar between groups. Despite achieving similar glycaemic control, insulin degludec-treated patients used 12% less basal and 9% less total daily insulin than did insulin glargine-treated patients (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Long-term basal therapy using insulin degludec in Type 1 diabetes required lower doses and was associated with a 25% lower risk for nocturnal hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine.

SUBMITTER: Bode BW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4264937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal-bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal-bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service.ResultsDegludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs.ConclusionThe present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal-bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529.

Project description:Insulin degludec (IDeg) once-daily was compared with insulin detemir (IDet) once- or twice-daily, with prandial insulin aspart in a treat-to-target, randomized controlled trial in children 1-17 yr with type 1 diabetes, for 26 wk (n = 350), followed by a 26-wk extension (n = 280). Participants were randomized to receive either IDeg once daily at the same time each day or IDet given once or twice daily according to local labeling. Aspart was titrated according to a sliding scale or in accordance with an insulin:carbohydrate ratio and a plasma glucose correction factor. Randomization was age-stratified: 85 subjects 1-5 yr. (IDeg: 43), 138 6-11 yr (IDeg: 70) and 127 12-17 yr (IDeg: 61) were included. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups overall and within each stratification. Non-inferiority of IDeg vs. IDet was confirmed for HbA1c at 26 wk; estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.15% [-0.03; 0.32]95% CI . At 52 wk, HbA1c was 7.9% (IDeg) vs. 7.8% (IDet), NS; change in mean FPG was -1.29 mmol/L (IDeg) vs. +1.10 mmol/L (IDet) (ETD -1.62 mmol/L [-2.84; -0.41]95% CI , p = 0.0090) and mean basal insulin dose was 0.38 U/kg (IDeg) vs. 0.55 U/kg (IDet). The majority of IDet treated patients (64%) required twice-daily administration to achieve glycemic targets. Hypoglycemia rates did not differ significantly between IDeg and IDet, but confirmed and severe hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher with IDeg (57.7 vs. 54.1 patient-years of exposure (PYE) [NS] and 0.51 vs. 0.33, PYE [NS], respectively) although nocturnal hypoglycemia rates were numerically lower (6.0 vs. 7.6 PYE, NS). Rates of hyperglycemia with ketosis were significantly lower for IDeg vs. IDet [0.7 vs. 1.1 PYE, treatment ratio 0.41 (0.22; 0.78)95% CI , p = 0.0066]. Both treatments were well tolerated with comparable rates of adverse events. IDeg achieved equivalent long-term glycemic control, as measured by HbA1c with a significant FPG reduction at a 30% lower basal insulin dose when compared with IDet. Rates of hypoglycemia did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups; however, hyperglycemia with ketosis was significantly reduced in those treated with IDeg.