The head-to-head comparison of insulin glargine 300 units/ml and degludec 100 units/ml using the CGM technology: results of the InRange trial

Czech version

Authors: Peter Novodvorský ^1,2,3
Authors‘ workplace: metabolické centrum s. r. o., Trenčín ¹; Centrum diabetologie IKEM, Praha ²; Department of Oncology and Metabolism, Medical School, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom ³
Published in: Diab Obez 2023; 23(45): 54-58
Category: Clinical studies

Overview

Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) represents an autoimmune form of diabetes which differs from other types of diabetes in several important characteristics that make the population of patients with this condition more vulnerable, for example towards hypoglycemia. The InRange trial represents a first head-to-head comparison of the two-2nd generation basal insulin analogues – insulin glargine 300 units/ml and insulin degludec 100 units/ ml in a form of a standard randomized controlled trial. Another primacy of InRange trial lies in the fact that it used CGM-based metrics (TIR, %CV) as primary and main secondary efficacy endpoints, respectively. In this article, I discuss the rationale, design and main results of the InRange trial as well as their implications for clinical practice.

Keywords:

basal insulin – glargine 300 U/ml – hypoglycaemia – continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) – glargine 100 U/ml hypoglycaemia – insulin degludec 100 U/ml – type 1 diabetes (T1DM)

Sources

1. Mobasseri M, Shirmohammadi M, Amiri T et al. Prevalence and incidence of type 1 diabetes in the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Promot Perspect 2020; 10(2): 98–115. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2020.18>.

2. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 9th edition. Brussells, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2019. Dostupné z WWW: <http://www.diabetesatlas.org>.

3. Melmed S, Polonsky KS, Larsen PR et al. Williams Textbook of Endocrinology. 12th ed. Elsevier Saunders 2011. ISBN 978–1437703245.

4. Heller SR, Novodvorsky P. Hypoglycaemia in Diabetes. Medicine (United Kingdom). 2022; 50(10): 671–677.

5. Pettus JH, Zhou FL, Shepherd L et al. Differences between patients with type 1 diabetes with optimal and suboptimal glycaemic control: A real-world study of more than 30 000 patients in a US electronic health record database. Diabetes Obes Metab 2020; 22(4): 622–630. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.13937>.

6. Pettus J, Santos Cavaiola T, Tamborlane WV et al. The past, present, and future of basal insulins. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2016; 32(6): 478–496. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.2763>.

7. Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J et al. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of longterm complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329(14): 977–986. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199309303291401>.

8. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000; 321(7258): 405–412. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405>.

9. [American Diabetes Association]. 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes 2021. Diabetes Care 2021; 44(Suppl 1): S73-S84. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S006>.

10. Danne T, Nimri R, Battelino T et al. International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care 2017; 40(12): 1631–1640. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc17–1600>.

11. Battelino T, Danne T, Bergenstal RM et al. Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range. Diabetes Care 2019; 42(8): 1593–1603. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dci19–0028>.

12. Miura H, Sakaguchi K, Otowa-Suematsu N et al. Effects of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U300 on glycaemic stability in individuals with type 1 diabetes: A multicentre, randomized controlled crossover study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2020; 22(12): 2356–2363. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.14161>.

13. Conget I, Delgado E, Mangas MÁ et al. Effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 vs IDeg 100 evaluated with continuous glucose monitoring profile in adults with type 1 diabetes in routine clinical practice in Spain: OneCARE study. EASD Virtual Meeting Vienna 2020. Dostupné z WWW: <https://www.easd.org/annual-meeting/easd-2020.html>.

14. Battelino T, Bosnyak Z, Danne T et al. InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design. Diabetes Ther 2020; 11(4): 1017–1027. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300–020–00781–6>.

15. Battelino T, Bosnyak Z, Danne T et al. Correction to: InRange: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design. Diabetes Ther 2020; 11(8): 1907–1908. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300–020–00853–7>. Erratum for In- Range: Comparison of the Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues Glargine 300 U/mL and Degludec 100 U/mL in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Study Design. Battelino T, Bosnyak Z, Danne T et al. Diabetes Ther 2020; 11(4): 1017–1027. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300–020–00781–6>.

16. Battelino T, Danne T, Edelman SV et al. Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: The head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2023; 25(2): 545–555. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.14898>.