Dataset Information

Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of endpoints in phase 3a trials.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Insulin degludec (degludec) is a basal insulin with an ultra-long, stable action profile and reduced pharmacodynamic variability. Seven phase 3a trials compared degludec with insulin glargine (glargine). Patient-level meta-analyses were performed to obtain a comprehensive overview of differences between the insulin preparations, possible because consistent outcome definitions were utilized. METHODS:Three categories of trials were analyzed: basal-bolus-treated type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DMB/B), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DMinsulin-naïve), and basal-bolus-treated T2DM (T2DMB/B). Regression models were adjusted for baseline characteristics. Endpoints analyzed were glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin dose and hypoglycemic rates analyzed in mutually exclusive groups: non-severe nocturnal, non-severe daytime, and severe. RESULTS:As with previous treat-to-target trials, reductions in HbA1c were similar between degludec and glargine. Reductions in FPG were significantly greater with degludec in T1DMB/B and T2DMinsulin-naïve. Total daily insulin dose was significantly lower with degludec in T1DMB/B and T2DMinsulin-naïve. Estimated hypoglycemia rate ratios for degludec/glargine were as follows for T1DMB/B, T2DMinsulin-naïve and T2DMB/B, respectively: non-severe nocturnal 0.83, 0.64, 0.75 (all P < 0.05); non-severe daytime 1.14 [not significant (ns)], 0.89 (ns), and 0.83 (P < 0.05). Rate ratios for severe events were 1.12 (ns) (T1DMB/B); 0.14 (P < 0.05) (T2DMinsulin-naïve); and not analyzed (T2DMB/B) due to too few events. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with glargine, degludec is associated with equivalent HbA1c control and significantly lower nocturnal hypoglycemia rates. In T1DMB/B and T2DMinsulin-naïve, degludec is also associated with significantly greater reductions in FPG and lower total doses of insulin versus glargine.

SUBMITTER: Vora J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4269648 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of endpoints in phase 3a trials.

Vora Jiten J Christensen Torsten T Rana Azhar A Bain Steve C SC

Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders 20140801 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Insulin degludec (degludec) is a basal insulin with an ultra-long, stable action profile and reduced pharmacodynamic variability. Seven phase 3a trials compared degludec with insulin glargine (glargine). Patient-level meta-analyses were performed to obtain a comprehensive overview of differences between the insulin preparations, possible because consistent outcome definitions were utilized.<h4>Methods</h4>Three categories of trials were analyzed: basal-bolus-treated type 1 d ...[more]

PMID: 25081590

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Search strategyWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.Main resultsThis review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.Authors' conclusionsOur analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding which therapeutic innovations in diabetes represent the best value requires rigorous economic evaluation. Data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies indicate that insulin degludec has a hypoglycemia advantage versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100), the most widely prescribed basal insulin analogue in the UK. This analysis was done to more rigorously assess cost-effectiveness in a UK setting.MethodsData from two double-blinded, randomised, two-period crossover trials in type 1 (SWITCH 1) and type 2 (SWITCH 2) diabetes mellitus were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of degludec vs. glargine U100 with an economic model. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon based on the different rates of hypoglycaemia and actual doses of insulin used, rather than glycaemic control due to the treat-to-target trial design.ResultsIn type 1 diabetes mellitus, degludec was highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £984 (increased costs of only £23/year and improvement in participant health of 0.0232 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). In type 2 diabetes mellitus, it was estimated that quality of life was improved (0.0065 QALYs gain) with degludec compared with glargine U100 at an increased annual cost of £117 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £17,939). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to changes in parameters in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsThe rigorous design of the SWITCH trials, coupled with a representative patient population and a definition of hypoglycaemia that is relevant for real-world patients, makes the results of these trials highly generalisable. The within-trial analysis has the added value of being able to include doses and event rates directly from the trials. This short-term economic analysis estimated that IDeg would be cost-effective relative to IGlar U100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.Trial registrationSWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600).FundingNovo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Degludec is an ultralong-acting, once-daily basal insulin that is approved for use in adults, adolescents, and children with diabetes. Previous open-label studies have shown lower day-to-day variability in the glucose-lowering effect and lower rates of hypoglycemia among patients who received degludec than among those who received basal insulin glargine. However, data are lacking on the cardiovascular safety of degludec. METHODS:We randomly assigned 7637 patients with type 2 diabetes to receive either insulin degludec (3818 patients) or insulin glargine U100 (3819 patients) once daily between dinner and bedtime in a double-blind, treat-to-target, event-driven cardiovascular outcomes trial. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of an adjudicated major cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3. Adjudicated severe hypoglycemia, as defined by the American Diabetes Association, was the prespecified, multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcome. RESULTS:Of the patients who underwent randomization, 6509 (85.2%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. At baseline, the mean age was 65.0 years, the mean duration of diabetes was 16.4 years, and the mean (±SD) glycated hemoglobin level was 8.4±1.7%; 83.9% of the patients were receiving insulin. The primary outcome occurred in 325 patients (8.5%) in the degludec group and in 356 (9.3%) in the glargine group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.06; P<0.001 for noninferiority). At 24 months, the mean glycated hemoglobin level was 7.5±1.2% in each group, whereas the mean fasting plasma glucose level was significantly lower in the degludec group than in the glargine group (128±56 vs. 136±57 mg per deciliter, P<0.001). Prespecified adjudicated severe hypoglycemia occurred in 187 patients (4.9%) in the degludec group and in 252 (6.6%) in the glargine group, for an absolute difference of 1.7 percentage points (rate ratio, 0.60; P<0.001 for superiority; odds ratio, 0.73; P<0.001 for superiority). Rates of adverse events did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, degludec was noninferior to glargine with respect to the incidence of major cardiovascular events. (Funded by Novo Nordisk and others; DEVOTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01959529 .).

Project description:IntroductionTo lower the barrier for initiating insulin treatment and obtain adequate glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), new basal insulin preparations with improved pharmacological properties and consequently a lower risk of hypoglycemia are needed. The objective of this trial was to confirm the efficacy and compare the safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in a multinational setting with two thirds of subjects enrolled in China.MethodsThis was a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial in 833 subjects with T2DM (48 % were female, mean age 56 years, diabetes duration 8 years), inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized 2:1 to once-daily IDeg (555 subjects) or IGlar (278 subjects), both with metformin. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 26 weeks.ResultsThe completion rate was high (IDeg 94.2 %; IGlar 91.4 %). Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3 to 7.0 % in both groups. Estimated treatment difference (ETD) [95 % confidence interval (CI)] IDeg-IGlar in change from baseline was -0.05 % points [-0.18 to 0.08], confirming the non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar. The proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c <7.0 % was 54.2 and 51.4 % with IDeg and IGlar, respectively (estimated odds ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 1.14 [0.84 to 1.54]). The mean decrease in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose profiles, and insulin dose were similar between groups. Numerically lower rates of overall (estimated rate ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 0.80 [0.59 to 1.10]) and nocturnal (0.77 [0.43 to 1.37]) confirmed hypoglycemia were observed with IDeg compared with IGlar. No treatment differences in other safety parameters were found. Subjects were more satisfied with the IDeg device compared with the IGlar device as reflected by the total Treatment Related Impact Measures-Diabetes Device score (ETD [95 % CI] IDeg-IGlar: 2.2 [0.2 to 4.3]).ConclusionIDeg provided adequate glycemic control non-inferior to IGlar and a tendency for a lower hypoglycemia rate. IDeg is considered suitable for initiating insulin therapy in T2DM patients on OADs requiring intensified treatment.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01849289.

Dataset Information

Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of endpoints in phase 3a trials.

Publications

Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of endpoints in phase 3a trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets