(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hemmingsen B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094220 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Hemmingsen Bianca B Metzendorf Maria-Inti MI Richter Bernd B
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20210304
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objectives</h4>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 mellitu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Abstract This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of ultra‐long acting insulin compared with long‐acting insulin in patients with T1DM.
| S-EPMC6513582 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8095010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThis study assessed the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues (LAIAs) vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin (ILAHI) for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world clinical practice.MethodsIndividual-level analyses were conducted within a longitudinal population-based cohort of 540 propensity score-matched T1D patients (LAIAs, n = 270; ILAHI, n = 270) with over 10 years of follow-up using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2004-2013, from third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. The study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events (eg, hypoglycaemia, diabetes-related complications), medical costs, and cost per case of events prevented. Cost estimates are presented in 2013 British pounds (GBP, £).ResultsThe NNTs using LAIAs vs ILAHI to avoid one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia and any diabetes-related complications were 12, 9 and 10 for mean follow-up periods of 5.84, 6.02 and 3.62 years, respectively. From third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives, using LAIAs instead of ILAHI saved GBP6924-GBP7116 per case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance prevented, GBP5346-GBP5508 per case of outpatient hypoglycaemia prevented, and GBP3570-GBP3680 per case of any diabetes-related complications prevented. Sensitivity analyses considering sampling uncertainty showed that using LAIAs over ILAHI yields at least a 76% probability of cost-saving for avoiding one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia or any diabetes-related complications.ConclusionsThis real-world evidence reveals that compared with ILAHI, the greater pharmaceutical costs associated with LAIAs for patients with T1D could be substantially offset by savings from averted hypoglycaemia or diabetes-related complications.
| S-EPMC7163379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the novel basal analog insulin degludec (IDeg: 70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). We compared the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp, an alternative formulation (AF) (55% IDeg and 45% IAsp), and insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs.In this 16-week, open-label trial, subjects (mean age 59.1 years, A1C 8.5%, BMI 30.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 59), AF (n = 59), or IGlar (n = 60), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered before the evening meal and dose-titrated to a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target of 4.0-6.0 mmol/L.After 16 weeks, mean A1C decreased in all groups to comparable levels (IDegAsp: 7.0%; AF: 7.2%; IGlar: 7.1%). A similar proportion of subjects achieved A1C <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment (IDegAsp: 51%; AF: 47%; IGlar: 50%). Mean 2-h postdinner plasma glucose increase was lower for IDegAsp (0.13 mmol/L) and AF (0.24 mmol/L) than IGlar (1.63 mmol/L), whereas mean FPG was similar (IDegAsp: 6.8 mmol/L; AF: 7.4 mmol/L; IGlar: 7.0 mmol/L). Hypoglycemia rates were lower for IDegAsp and IGlar than AF (1.2, 0.7, and 2.4 events/patient year). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred rarely for IDegAsp (1 event) and IGlar (3 events) compared with AF (27 events).In this proof-of-concept trial, once-daily IDegAsp was safe, well tolerated, and provided comparable overall glycemic control to IGlar at similar low rates of hypoglycemia, but better postdinner plasma glucose control.
| S-EPMC3041205 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8342652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a basal insulin that forms soluble multihexamers after subcutaneous injection, resulting in an ultra-long action profile. We assessed the efficacy and safety of IDeg formulations administered once daily in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes.In this 16-week, randomized, open-label trial, participants (mean: 45.8 years old, A1C 8.4%, fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 9.9 mmol/L, BMI 26.9 kg/m(2)) received subcutaneous injections of IDeg(A) (600 ?mol/L; n = 59), IDeg(B) (900 ?mol/L; n = 60), or insulin glargine (IGlar; n = 59), all given once daily in the evening. Insulin aspart was administered at mealtimes. RESULTS At 16 weeks, mean A1C was comparable for IDeg(A) (7.8 ± 0.8%), IDeg(B) (8.0 ± 1.0%), and IGlar (7.6 ± 0.8%), as was FPG (8.3 ± 4.0, 8.3 ± 2.8, and 8.9 ± 3.5 mmol/L, respectively). Estimated mean rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were 28% lower for IDeg(A) compared with IGlar (rate ratio [RR]: 0.72 [95% CI 0.52-1.00]) and 10% lower for IDeg(B) compared with IGlar (RR: 0.90 [0.65-1.24]); rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia were 58% lower for IDeg(A) (RR: 0.42 [0.25-0.69]) and 29% lower for IDeg(B) (RR: 0.71 [0.44-1.16]). Mean total daily insulin dose was similar to baseline. The frequency and pattern of adverse events was similar between insulin treatments.In this clinical exploratory phase 2 trial in people with type 1 diabetes, IDeg is safe and well tolerated and provides comparable glycemic control to IGlar at similar doses, with reduced rates of hypoglycemia.
| S-EPMC3041203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionStrict glucose control using multiple doses of insulin is the standard treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), but increased risk of hypoglycemia is a frequent drawback. Regular insulin in multiple doses is important for achieving strict glycemic control for T1DM, but short-acting insulin analogues may be better in reducing hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose in patients with T1DM.MethodsSearches were run on the electronic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, and DARE for RCTs published until August 2017. To be included in the study, the RCTs had to cover a minimum period of 4 weeks and had to assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues vs regular human insulin on hypoglycemia and postprandial glucose levels in patients with T1DM. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the selected studies. The primary outcomes analyzed were hypoglycemia (total episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia) and postprandial glucose (at all times, after breakfast, after lunch, and after dinner). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and quality of life were considered secondary outcomes. The risk of bias of each RCT was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias table, while the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADEpro software. The pooled mean difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes and postprandial glucose between short-acting insulin analogues vs. regular human insulin was calculated using the random-effects model.ResultsOf the 2897 articles retrieved, 22 (6235 patients) were included. Short-acting insulin analogues were associated with a decrease in total hypoglycemic episodes (risk rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99; 6235 patients; I2?=?81%), nocturnal hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.76, 1995 patients, I2?=?84%), and severe hypoglycemia (risk rate 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.77; 5945 patients, I2?=?0%); and with lower postprandial glucose levels (mean difference/MD -?19.44 mg/dL; 95% CI -?21.49 to -?17.39; 5031 patients, I2?=?69%) and lower HbA1c (MD -?0,13%; IC 95% -?0.16 to -?0.10; 5204 patients; I2?=?73%) levels.ConclusionsShort-acting insulin analogues are superior to regular human insulin in T1DM patients for the following outcomes: total hypoglycemic episodes, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, postprandial glucose, and HbA1c.
| S-EPMC6317184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to compare insulin degludec with insulin glargine in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials published prior to 13 August 2018 (no language restrictions) which compared insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Our main endpoints were glycemic control, hypoglycemic event, weight gain, and serious adverse events (SAEs). We assessed pooled data using random-effects models.ResultsA total of 15 studies that included 9619 patients in the insulin degludec arm of the studies and 7075 patients in the insulin glargine arm were identified and subsequently assessed. Our analysis showed that compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec yielded an improved mean reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 5.20 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.34, - 3.07, P < 0.00001) and a lower ratio of participants experiencing ≥ 1 severe hypoglycemic event (relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.50, 0.93, P = 0.01) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75, 0.88, P < 0.0001); however, in the insulin degludec group there was a lower ratio of participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of ≤ 7.0% (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86, 0.98, P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for HbA1c reduction (WMD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.00, 0.07, P = 0.08), body weight gain (WMD 0.12, 95% CI - 0.19, 0.43, P = 0.46), and proportion of participants with SAEs (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92, 1.02, P = 0.20).ConclusionsInsulin degludec and insulin glargine provide similar glycemic control, but insulin degludec also lowers the risk of hypoglycemia. Consequently, insulin degludec may be an alternative treatment for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes who are prone to hypoglycemia with insulin glargine.
| S-EPMC6531575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level.AimTo conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH.MethodsWe identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data.ResultsWe found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24).ConclusionThis study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians.
| S-EPMC5896894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe investigated blood glucose (BG) and hormone response to aerobic high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) and moderate continuous exercise (CON) matched for mean load and duration in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).Material and methodsSeven trained male subjects with T1DM performed a maximal incremental exercise test and HIIE and CON at 3 different mean intensities below (A) and above (B) the first lactate turn point and below the second lactate turn point (C) on a cycle ergometer. Subjects were adjusted to ultra-long-acting insulin Degludec (Tresiba/ Novo Nordisk, Denmark). Before exercise, standardized meals were administered, and short-acting insulin dose was reduced by 25% (A), 50% (B), and 75% (C) dependent on mean exercise intensity. During exercise, BG, adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine, cortisol, glucagon, and insulin-like growth factor-1, blood lactate, heart rate, and gas exchange variables were measured. For 24 h after exercise, interstitial glucose was measured by continuous glucose monitoring system.ResultsBG decrease during HIIE was significantly smaller for B (p = 0.024) and tended to be smaller for A and C compared to CON. No differences were found for post-exercise interstitial glucose, acute hormone response, and carbohydrate utilization between HIIE and CON for A, B, and C. In HIIE, blood lactate for A (p = 0.006) and B (p = 0.004) and respiratory exchange ratio for A (p = 0.003) and B (p = 0.003) were significantly higher compared to CON but not for C.ConclusionHypoglycemia did not occur during or after HIIE and CON when using ultra-long-acting insulin and applying our methodological approach for exercise prescription. HIIE led to a smaller BG decrease compared to CON, although both exercises modes were matched for mean load and duration, even despite markedly higher peak workloads applied in HIIE. Therefore, HIIE and CON could be safely performed in T1DM.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075567 http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02075567.
| S-EPMC4552855 | biostudies-literature