Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of Switching Rapid-Acting Insulins to Insulin Glulisine in Patients with Diabetes: The Observational IGLU-S Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The IGLU-S study assessed the effectiveness of insulin glulisine after switching from human insulin/other rapid-acting insulin analogues in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in a real-world setting in Germany.

Methods

Open-label, prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study in Germany. The primary outcome was proportion of patients reaching pre-defined glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) goal at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included absolute changes in HbA1c, rate of hypoglycaemia and 7-point blood glucose profiles.

Results

Overall, 432 (55 T1DM, 377 T2DM) patients were enrolled. Baseline HbA1c was 8.2% (T1DM) and 8.3% (T2DM); individual HbA1c targets were 6.8% and 6.9%, respectively. After insulin glulisine introduction, the proportion of patients achieving their individual HbA1c increased to 43.6% (T1DM) and 39.6% (T2DM) of patients at 12 months. At 12 months, mean HbA1c was reduced by 0.86 ± 1.03% (p < 0.0001) in T1DM and 1.01 ± 1.02 (p < 0.0001) in T2DM. The 7-point blood glucose profile showed a significant reduction in patients with T2DM (p< 0.0001) and a non-significant reduction in T1DM patients. Confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia was 5.7% (T1DM) and 1.6% (T2DM). There were no cases of severe hypoglycaemia.

Conclusion

Switching prandial insulin to insulin glulisine resulted in improved effectiveness with 43.6% of T1DM and 39.6% of T2DM patients reaching their individual pre-defined HbA1c target within 1 year. Switching was safe and was associated with a low rate of hypoglycaemia and adverse events.

Trial registration

https://awbdb.bfarm.de ; Identifier: 6818; Date of registration: 23.06.2016.

SUBMITTER: Seufert J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947079 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and grey literature were searched through January 2013.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies of long acting (glargine, detemir) and intermediate acting (neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente) insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes were included.Results39 studies (27 randomized controlled trials including 7496 patients) were included after screening of 6501 titles/abstracts and 190 full text articles. Glargine once daily, detemir once daily, and detemir once/twice daily significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c compared with NPH once daily in network meta-analysis (26 randomized controlled trials, mean difference -0.39%, 95% confidence interval -0.59% to -0.19%; -0.26%, -0.48% to -0.03%; and -0.36%, -0.65% to -0.08%; respectively). Differences in network meta-analysis were observed between long acting and intermediate acting insulin for severe hypoglycemia (16 randomized controlled trials; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once/twice daily: odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.91) and weight gain (13 randomized controlled trials; detemir once daily versus NPH once/twice daily: mean difference 4.04 kg, 3.06 to 5.02 kg; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once daily: -5.51 kg, -6.56 to -4.46 kg; glargine once daily versus NPH once daily: -5.14 kg, -6.07 to -4.21). Compared with NPH, detemir was less costly and more effective in 3/14 cost effectiveness analyses and glargine was less costly and more effective in 2/8 cost effectiveness analyses. The remaining cost effectiveness analyses found that detemir and glargine were more costly but more effective than NPH. Glargine was not cost effective compared with detemir in 2/2 cost effectiveness analyses.ConclusionsLong acting insulin analogs are probably superior to intermediate acting insulin analogs, although the difference is small for hemoglobin A1c. Patients and their physicians should tailor their choice of insulin according to preference, cost, and accessibility.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42013003610.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).ResultsWe included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).ConclusionsOur results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.Prospero registrationCRD42017077051.

Project description:Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) causes progressive destruction of pancreatic beta cells leading to absolute insulin deficiency. Treatment of T1DM requires insulin, and some evidence suggests that longer acting insulin analogues might have a higher effectiveness and greater safety profile compared to intermediate-acting insulin. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of long-acting insulin versus intermediate-acting insulin through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Studies examining long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin or placebo preparations for adult T1DM patients will be included. The primary outcome is glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), and secondary outcomes include emergency department and physician visits, hospital admissions, weight gain, quality of life, microvascular complications (e.g., retinopathy), macrovascular complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease), all-cause mortality, incident cancers, and cost. We will include experimental [randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs], quasi-experimental (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), observational (cohort), and cost studies, of any duration of follow-up, conducted during all time periods, and disseminated in any language.We will conduct comprehensive searches of electronic databases from inception onwards, including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. We will also search for difficult to locate and unpublished literature by searching dissertation databases, public health organization websites, and trial registries. After a calibration exercise using our eligibility criteria and data abstraction forms, two reviewers will screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data in duplicate. Conflicts will be resolved by team discussion. Using a similar process, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Risk of Bias tool will be used to appraise the risk of bias of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, while the Newcastle Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of cohort studies. If feasible and appropriate, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis, as well as a network meta-analysis.Our systematic review will be of utility to healthcare providers, policy-makers, T1DM patients and family members regarding treatment options of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin preparations.PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003610.