Duration of type 2 diabetes does not appear to moderate hypoglycaemia rate with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Alexopoulos AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8286333 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimThis study aimed to investigate the safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in relation to age and risk of hypoglycaemia post hoc in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (SWITCH 2 trial).MethodsIn this crossover study, individuals with T2D who were at risk of hypoglycaemia were randomized to double-blind treatment with degludec or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) ± oral antidiabetic drugs. After 32 weeks, patients crossed over to the other treatment. Primary endpoint was number of overall severe (positively adjudicated) or glucose-confirmed (plasma glucose <56 mg/dL; 3.1 mmol/L) symptomatic hypoglycaemia events during the two 16-week maintenance periods.ResultsFor individuals ≤65 (n = 450) and >65 (n = 270) years, baseline median (range) duration of diabetes was 12 (1-40) vs 15 (1-54) years, mean HbA1c was 7.7% vs 7.4% and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 87.0 vs 63.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 , respectively. No significant differences in HbA1c reduction were seen in individuals ≤65 or >65 years. During both maintenance periods, treatment with degludec lowered rates of hypoglycaemia (overall/nocturnal symptomatic) vs those with glargine U100 in individuals ≤65 (31% vs 43%) and >65 (30% vs 41%) years. With degludec and glargine U100, respectively, six vs nine severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in individuals ≤65 years and four vs eight events occurred in those >65 years. Adverse event rates were 3.2 and 3.3 events/patient-year for individuals ≤65 years and were 3.5 and 4.1 events/patient-year for individuals >65 years with degludec and glargine U100, respectively.ConclusionTreatment with degludec was safe and effective, with a frequency of hypoglycaemia lower than that with glargine U100 in both younger and older individuals (>65 years) with T2D.
| S-EPMC6618254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:A prospective meta-analysis of phase 3 trials showed lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine. We investigated the consistency of the results across different definitions of hypoglycaemia. METHODS:This post-hoc, patient-level meta-analysis included six randomized, controlled, 26- or 52-week phase 3a trials in insulin-naïve participants with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Type 2 diabetesinsulin naïve ), participants with Type 2 diabetes mellitus using basal-bolus therapy (Type 2 diabetesBB ) and those with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. We used three definitions of hypoglycaemia and different timescales for the nocturnal period. Rates were analysed for the entire core trial period, the 'maintenance period' only, and the extension trial set population. Analyses utilized a negative binomial regression model. RESULTS:In Type 2 diabetesinsulin naïve participants, risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine for all hypoglycaemia definitions and trial periods. Risk was also lower for the timescale 21.59-05.59, but not 00.01-07.59. For Type 2 diabetesBB , nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were lower with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine across all definitions, timescales and trial periods, with one exception. For individuals with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk was significantly lower with insulin degludec during the maintenance period for the original definition (plasma glucose < 3.1 mmol/l, timescale 00.01-05.59) and in the extension trial set population for all hypoglycaemia definitions except for the nocturnal timescale 00.01-07.59. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with insulin glargine, insulin degludec is associated with lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and similar or lower rates in Type 1 diabetes mellitus, across different definitions.
| S-EPMC5064738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to describe the risks of cardiovascular (CV) events and severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) aged 65 years or older.Materials and methodsA total of 7637 patients in the DEVOTE trial, a treat-to-target, randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the CV safety of degludec vs glargine U100, were divided into three age groups (50-64 years, n = 3682; 65-74 years, n = 3136; ≥75 years, n = 819). Outcomes by overall age group and randomized treatment differences were analysed for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events (SAEs).ResultsPatients with increasing age had higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and there were non-significant trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia. Treatment effects on the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, severe hypoglycaemia and SAEs were consistent across age groups, based on the non-significant interactions between treatment and age with regard to these outcomes.ConclusionsThere were higher risks of CV death, all-cause mortality and SAEs, and trends towards higher risks of MACE and severe hypoglycaemia with increasing age after adjusting for baseline differences. The effects across age groups of degludec vs glargine U100 on MACE, all-cause mortality and severe hypoglycaemia were comparable, suggesting that the risk of MACE, as well as all-cause mortality, is similar and the risk of severe hypoglycaemia is lower with degludec regardless of age. Evidence is conclusive only until 74 years of age.
| S-EPMC6617815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo compare time in range (TIR) with use of insulin degludec U100 (degludec) versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes.Materials and methodsWe conducted a randomized, crossover, multicentre trial comparing degludec and glargine U100 in basal insulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes and ≥1 hypoglycaemia risk factor. There were two treatment periods, each with 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phases (with evaluation of glucose using blinded professional continuous glucose monitoring). The once-weekly titration (target: 3.9-5.0 mmol/L) was based on pre-breakfast self-measured blood glucose. The primary endpoint was percentage of TIR (3.9─10.0 mmol/L). Secondary endpoints included overall and nocturnal percentage of time in tight glycaemic range (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), and mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and glucose levels.ResultsAt baseline, participants (n = 498) had a mean (SD) age of 62.8 (9.8) years, a diabetes duration of 15.1 (7.7) years and an HbA1c level of 59.6 (11.0) mmol/mol (7.6 [1.0]%). Noninferiority and superiority were confirmed for degludec versus glargine U100 for the primary endpoint, with a mean TIR of 72.1% for degludec versus 70.7% for glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference [ETD] 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 2.74; P = 0.03] or 20.6 min/d). Overall time in tight glycaemic range favoured degludec versus glargine U100 (ETD 1.5% [95% CI: 0.15, 2.89] or 21.9 min/d). Degludec also reduced nocturnal time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) compared with glargine U100 (ETD -0.88% [95% CI: -1.34, -0.42] or 12.7 min/night; post hoc) and significantly fewer nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes of <3.0 mmol/L were observed.ConclusionsDegludec, compared with glargine U100, provided more TIR and time in tight glycaemic range, and reduced nocturnal TBR in insulin-treated people with type 2 diabetes.
| S-EPMC9290717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.MethodsA simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure.ResultsIn Bulgaria, degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM. The ICERs were estimated to be 4493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 7365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DMB/B), which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Degludec was associated with higher insulin costs in all three patient groups; however, savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 partially offset these costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DMBOT and 91.3% in T2DMB/B.ConclusionDegludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.
| S-EPMC6891960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Serbia.MethodsA cost-utility analysis, implementing a simple short-term model, was used to compare treatment costs and outcomes with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Cost-effectiveness was analysed in a 1-year setting, based on data from clinical trials. Costs were estimated from the healthcare payer perspective, the Serbian Health Insurance Fund (RFZO). The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsDegludec is highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100 for people with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. The ICERs are estimated at 417,586 RSD/QALY gained in T1DM, 558,811 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 1,200,141 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal-bolus therapy (T2DMB/B). All ICERs fall below the commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in Serbia (1,785,642 RSD/QALY gained). In all three patient groups, insulin costs are higher with degludec than with glargine U100, but these costs are partially offset by savings from a lower daily insulin dose in T1DM and T2DMBOT, a reduction in hypoglycaemic events in all three patient groups and reduced costs of SMBG testing in the T2DM groups with degludec versus glargine U100.ConclusionDegludec is a cost-effective alternative to glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. Degludec may particularly benefit those suffering from hypoglycaemia or where the patient would benefit from the option of flexible dosing.FundingNovo Nordisk.
| S-EPMC5984929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIM:Treat-to-target, randomized controlled trials have confirmed lower rates of hypoglycaemia at equivalent glycaemic control with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Treat-to-target trials are designed to enable comparisons of safety and tolerability at a similar HbA1c level. In this post hoc analysis of the SWITCH 1 and 2 trials, we utilised a patient-level modelling approach to compare how glycaemic control might differ between basal insulins at a similar rate of hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Data for HbA1c and symptomatic hypoglycaemia from the SWITCH 1 and SWITCH 2 trials were analyzed separately for patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, respectively. The association between the individual patient-level risk of hypoglycaemia and HbA1c was investigated using a Poisson regression model and used to estimate potential differences in glycaemic control with degludec versus glargine U100, at the same rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS:Improvements in glycaemic control increased the incidence of hypoglycaemia with both basal insulins across diabetes types. Our analysis suggests that patients could achieve a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.70 [0.05; 2.20]95% CI (for type 1 diabetes) or 0.96 [0.39; 1.99]95% CI (for type 2 diabetes) percentage points (8 [1; 24]95% CI or 10 [4; 22]95% CI mmol/mol, respectively) further with degludec than with glargine U100 before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSION:Our findings suggest that patients in clinical practice may be able to achieve lower glycaemia targets with degludec versus glargine U100, before incurring an equivalent risk of hypoglycaemia.
| S-EPMC7186831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IN BRIEF Hispanic patients with type 2 diabetes have poorer glycemic control and are at higher risk of severe diabetes complications and mortality than non-Hispanic white patients. This post hoc analysis investigated the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in the Hispanic patient subpopulation from the SWITCH 2 trial. In Hispanic patients, hypoglycemia was consistently lower and nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with degludec versus glargine U100 at similar levels of glycemic control. Overall, results in Hispanic patients in SWITCH 2 were consistent with those in non-Hispanic patients.
| S-EPMC6336128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Heart failure (HF) is a common cardiovascular complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This secondary analysis investigated baseline factors and treatment differences associated with risk of hospitalization for HF (hHF), and the possible association between severe hypoglycemia and hHF. METHODS:DEVOTE was a treat-to-target, double-blind cardiovascular outcomes trial in patients (n?=?7637) with T2D and high cardiovascular risk randomized to insulin degludec (degludec) or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100). The main endpoint of this secondary analysis was time to first hHF (standardized MedDRA Query definition). Severe hypoglycemia was adjudicated (American Diabetes Association definition). The main endpoint and the temporal association between severe hypoglycemia and hHF were analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Predictors of time to first hHF were identified using baseline variables. RESULTS:Overall, 372 (4.9%) patients experienced hHF (550 events). There was no significant difference in the risk of hHF between treatments (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [0.72;1.08]95% CI, p?=?0.227). Prior HF (HR 4.89 [3.90;6.14]95% CI, p???0.0001) was the strongest predictor of future hHF events. The risk of hHF significantly increased after (HR 2.2), and within a week after (HR 11.1), experiencing a severe hypoglycemic episode compared with before an episode. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with T2D and high cardiovascular risk there were no treatment differences in terms of hHF. Prior HF was the strongest predictor of future hHF events, and there was an association between severe hypoglycemia and subsequent hHF. Further research should evaluate whether the risk of hHF can be modified by treatments aimed at reducing hypoglycemia. Trial Registration NCT01959529.
| S-EPMC6858747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:A head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. METHODS:This randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ?18 years with HbA1c ?80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ?45 kg/m2. Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period. RESULTS:Of the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:There was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478 FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark).
| S-EPMC7054369 | biostudies-literature