#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Second generation basal insulin analogues in clinical trials using continuous monitoring of glucose levels


Authors: Emil Martinka 1,2
Authors‘ workplace: Národný endokrinologický a diabetologický ústav, n. o., Ľubochňa 1;  Fakulta zdravotníckych vied Piešťany, Univerzita Sv. Cyrila a Metoda, Trnava 2
Published in: Forum Diab 2021; 10(1): 43-51
Category:

Overview

Basal 2nd generation insulin analogues are the preferred choice for substituting basal insulin requirements in patients with diabetes mellitus Such insulins are currently insulin Glargine 300U/ml (IGla300) and insulin Degludek 100U/ml (IDeg100). This is due to their longer and more balanced effect and lower risk of hypoglycemia, especially during the night, compared to first-generation basal analogues or NPH insulin. However, clinically significant hypo­glycemia and variability also occur with these insulins and therefore a more detailed assessment of their therapeutic effect is needed than that provided only by the measurement of HbA1c and glycemic profiles. However the head-to-head comparison of the two basal 2nd generation insulin analogues is limited to two pharmacokinetic studies which evaluated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of IGla300 and IDeg100 using a euglyc­emic clamp, with conflicting results, and two RCT head-to-head studies, BRIGHT and CONCLUDE, which compared the efficacy and safety of both insulins based on the evaluation of HbA1c, SMBG and commonly recorded hypoglycemias, and which have also shown several conflicting results. A more detailed and better picture is provided by an evalu­ation based on continuous monitoring of glucose concentrations according to parameters such as TIR, TBR TAR variability and estimated eHbA1c. However, only a few monocentric, crossover RCT studies are currently available, which provide such data only in small patient populations and during a short follow-up, and which so far favour the IGla300 to some extent. IGla300 is also favoured by a multicentric, cohort, retrospective RWE study OneCare which assessed the efficacy and safety of IGla300 vs IDeg100 that were evaluated based on CGM data in adult patients with DM1T, who were insufficiently compensated by basal insulin in routine clinical practice. Data from 199 patients were evaluated, while the parameters “Time in range, TIR” (3.9-10.0 mmol/l), “Time above range, TAR” and “Time below range, TBR” were comparable in both cohorts within the whole day (24 hours) evaluation. Similarly, the estimated mean HbA1c (eHbA1c) as well as the total insulin dose were comparable in both cohorts. However a difference in the TIR parameter was found in favour of IGla300 during the nighttime (0.00-06.00 h), equal to 52.4% for IGla300, while it was 46,2% for IDeg100, and in the TAR parameter >10.0 mmol/l, when for IGla300 it equalled 40.1%, while for IDeg it was 47.2%. The parameters of glycemic variability (CV, LBGI, HBGI, ADRR, MAGE, MODD) within 24 hours were comparable, but during the nighttime a smoother course of the glycemic curve and lower glycemic oscillations (MAGE) were observed in the IGla300 group as compared to the IDeg100 group. Finally, the number of hyperglycemic episodes was also lower in the IGla300 group (TAR > 10 mmol/l, as well as > 13,9 mmol/l) during the night. Safety parameters from the CGM record, such as the number of hypoglycemic events, and TBR did not differ significantly between the groups, namely for TBR < 3,0 mmol/l and also for TBR < 3,9 mmol/l). There was no difference between the two groups in evaluating satisfaction with the treatment using the DTSQs questionnaire. The limitation of the study is its retrospective character. An even better overview of the comparison could be provided by the head-to-head multicentric, randomized clinical study InRange (NCT04075513). The InRange study will follow 340 participants for 12 weeks. The main monitored parameter will be TIR. The study should be completed in June 2021.

Keywords:

second-generation basal insulin analogs – insulin degludec 100 – insulin glargine 300


Sources
  1. Bailey TS, Pettus J, Roussel R et al. Morning administration of 0.4 U/kg/day insulin glargine 300 U/mL provides less fluctuating 24 hour pharmacodynamics and more even pharmacokinetic profiles compared with insulin degludec 100 U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Feb 2018; 44(1): 15–21. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2017.10.001>.
  2. Battelino T, Edelman SV, Nishimura R et al. Comparison of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogs: A Review of the Evidence from Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021; 23(1): 20–30. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2020.0180>.
  3. 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>.
  4. 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>.
  5. Becker RH, Dahmen R, Bergmann K et al. New insulin glargine 300 units·mL−1 provides a more even activity profile and prolonged glycemic control at steady state compared with insulin glargine 100 units·mL−1. Diabetes Care 2015; 38(4): 637–643. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc14–0006>.
  6. Becker RH, Nowotny I, Teichert L et al. Low within and between day variability in exposure to new insulin glargine 300 U/ml. Diabetes Obes Metab 2015; 17(3): 261–267. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.12416>.
  7. Bergenstal RM, Beck RW, Close KL et al. Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 2018; 41(11): 2275–2280. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc18–1581>.
  8. Bergenstal RM, Bailey TS, Rodbard D et al. Comparison of insulin glargine 300 units/mL and 100 units/mL in adults with type 1 diabetes: continuous glucose monitoring profiles and variability using morning or evening injections. Diabetes Care 2017; 40(4): 554–560. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc16–0684>.
  9. [ClinicalTrials.gov]. A trial comparing the efficacy of insulin degludec with insulin glargine on glycaemic control using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes. Dostupné z WWW: <https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01569841>.
  10. Conget 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 2020 Virtual Meeting. Poster P-67. <https://www.easd.org/virtualmeeting/home.html>.
  11. 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>.
  12. Del Prato S. How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial? Diabetologia 2020; 63(4): 692–697. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125–020–05086–8>.
  13. Edelman SV, Argento NB, Pettus J et al. Clinical Implications of Real-time and Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care 2018; 41(11): 2265–2274. Dostupné z DOI: <https://doi.org/10.2337/dc18–1150>.
  14. Emral R, Pathan F, Cortes CAY et al. Self reported hypoglycemia in insulin treated patients with diabetes: results from an international survey on 7289 patients from nine countries. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2017; 134: 17–28. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2017.07.031>.
  15. Fonseca VA, Grunberger G, Anhalt H et al. Continuous glucose monitoring: a consensus conference of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Endocr Pract 2016; 22(8): 1008–1021. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.4158/EP161392.CS>.
  16. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016 2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019; 21(2): 66–72. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2018.0384>.
  17. Galasso S, Facchinetti A, Bonora BM et al. Switching from twice daily glargine or detemir to once daily degludec improves glucose control in type 1 diabetes. An observational study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2016; 26(12): 1112–1119. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2016.08.002>.
  18. Heise T, Hovelmann U, Nosek L et al. Comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin degludec and insulin glargine. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2015; 11(8): 1193–1201. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2015.1058779.
  19. Heise T, Nosek L, Bottcher SG et al. Ultra long acting insulin degludec has a flat and stable glucose lowering effect in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2012; 14(10): 944–950. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1463–1326.2012.01638.x>.
  20. Heise T, Norskov M, Nosek L et al. Insulin degludec: lower day to day and within day variability in pharmacodynamic response compared with insulin glargine 300 U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017; 19(7): 1032–1039. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.12938>.
  21. Heller SR, Buse JB, Ratner R et al. Redefining hypoglycemia in clinical trials: validation of definitions recently adopted by the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020; 43(2): 398 404. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc18–2361>.
  22. Henao Carrillo DC, Munoz OM, Gomez AM et al. Reduction of glycemic variability with degludec insulin in patients with unstable diabetes. J Clin Transl Endocrinol 2018; 12: 8–12. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2018.03.003>.
  23. Home P. How valid are the new hypoglycemia definitions for use in clinical trials? Diabetes Care 2020; 43(2): 272–274. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dci19–0056>.
  24. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 8th edition 2017. Dostupné z WWW: <https://diabetesatlas.org/upload/resources/previous/files/8/IDF_DA_8e-EN-final.pdf>.
  25. Iga R, Uchino H, Kanazawa K et al. Glycemic variability in type 1 diabetes compared with degludec and glargine on the morning injection: an open label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther 2017; 8(4): 783–792. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300–017–0269–0>.
  26. Iwasaki S, Kozawa J, Kimura T et al. Insulin degludec is associated with less frequent and milder hypoglycemia in insulin deficient patients with type 1 diabetes compared with insulin glargine or detemir. Diabetol Int 2017; 8(2): 228–236. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13340–017–0303–5>.
  27. Jinnouchi H, Koyama M, Amano A et al. Continuous glucose monitoring during basal bolus therapy using insulin glargine 300 U 1) and glargine 100 U mL 1) in Japanese people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a crossover pilot study. Diabetes Ther 2015; 6(2): 143–152. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300–015–0115–1>.
  28. Tamborlane WV, Beck RW, Bode BW et al. [Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group]. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 359(14): 1464 -1476. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0805017>.
  29. Kawaguchi Y, Sawa J, Sakuma N et al. Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, open label, cross over study using continuous glucose monitoring profiles. J Diabetes Investig 2019; 10(2): 343–351. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12884>.
  30. Khunti K, Alsifri S, Aronson R et al. Rates and predictors of hypoglycaemia in 27 585 people from 24 countries with insulin treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the global HAT study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2016; 18(9): 907–915. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.12689>.
  31. Komuro M, Inoue G, Tabata M et al. Insulin degludec requires lower bolus insulin doses than does insulin glargine in Japanese diabetic patients with insulin dependent state. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015; 9(3): 632–638. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932296814564396>.
  32. Kuroda A, Tsuruo M, Aki N et al. A pilot study comparing the CGM assessed glycemic profiles of patients with type 1 diabetes on insulin degludec and insulin glargine. Diabetol Int 2017; 8(1): 112–115. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13340–016–0289–4>.
  33. Martinka E. Výsledky štúdie NEFRITI. Dostupné z WWW: <https://lekar.sdia.sk/sdia-lekarske-profesne-zdruzenie-aktuality/34/nefriti/>.
  34. Martinka E. Výsledky štúdie CARERA. Dostupné z WWW: <https://lekar.sdia.sk/sdia-lekarske-profesne-zdruzenie-aktuality/33/carera-cardiovascular-and-renal-risk-assessment-prieskum-kardiovaskularneho-rizika-u-pacientov-s-diabetes-mellitus-2-typu-na-slovensku/>.
  35. 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>.
  36. Okajima F, Nakamura Y, Yamaguchi Y et al. Basal bolus insulin therapy with Gla 300 during hospitalization reduces nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled study. Diabetes Ther 2018; 9(3): 1049–1059. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300–018–0419-z>.
  37. Peters AL, Ahmann AJ, Battelino T et al. Diabetes technology continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and continuous glucose monitoring in adults: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016; 101(11): 3922–3937. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2016–2534>.
  38. Pettus JH, Zhou FL, Shepherd L et al. Incidences of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis and prevalence of microvascular complications stratified by age and glycemic control in U.S. adult patients with type 1 diabetes: a real world study. Diabetes Care 2019: 42(12): 2220–2227. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc19–0830>.
  39. Philis Tsimikas A, Stratton I, Nørgård Troelsen L et al. Efficacy and safety of degludec compared to glargine 300 units/mL in insulin experienced patients with type 2 diabetes: trial protocol amendment (NCT03078478). J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13(3): 498–506. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932296819841585>.
  40. Philis Tsimikas A, Klonoff DC, Khunti K et al. Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head to head CONCLUDE trial. Diabetologia 2020; 63(4): 698–710. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125–019–05080–9>.
  41. Philis Tsimikas A, Klonoff DC, Khunti K et al. Reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and lower HbA1c with degludec compared to glargine U300 in insulin treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2019; 62(1, Suppl). Dostupné z www: <https://link.springer.com/journal/125/volumes-and-issues/62–1/supplement>.
  42. Ratner RE, Gough SC, Mathieu C et al. Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a pre planned meta analysis of phase 3 trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 2013; 15(2): 175–184. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.12032>.
  43. Ritzel R, Roussel R, Bolli GB et al. Patient level meta analysis of the EDITION 1, 2 and 3 studies: glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus glargine 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2015; 17(9): 859–867. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.12485>.
  44. Rosenstock J, Cheng A, Ritzel R et al. More similarities than differences testing insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus insulin degludec 100 units/mL in insulin naive type 2 diabetes: the randomized head to head BRIGHT trial. Diabetes Care 2018; 41(10): 2147–2154. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc18–0559>.
  45. Takahashi H, Nishimura R, Onda Y et al. Comparison of glycemic variability in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes receiving insulin degludec versus insulin detemir using continuous glucose monitoring: a randomized, cross over, pilot study. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2017; 18(4): 335–342. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14656566.2017.1293652>.
  46. Thalange N, Deeb L, Iotova V et al. Insulin degludec in combination with bolus insulin aspart is safe and effective in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes 2015; 16(3): 164–176. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12263>.
  47. Tosaka Y, Kanazawa A, Ikeda F et al. Switching from twice daily basal insulin injections to once daily insulin degludec injection for basal bolus insulin regimen in Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. Int J Endocrinol 2015; 2015: 176261. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/176261>.
  48. Wright LA, Hirsch IB. Metrics beyond hemoglobin A1C in diabetes management: time in range, hypoglycemia, and other parameters. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017; 19(S2): S16-S26. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/dia.2017.0029>.
  49. Yamamoto C, Miyoshi H, Fujiwara Y et al. Degludec is superior to glargine in terms of daily glycemic variability in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocr J 2016; 63(1): 53–60. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1507/endocrj.EJ15–0438>.
  50. Yamabe M, Kuroda M, Hirosawa Y et al. Comparison of insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec using flash glucose monitoring: a randomized cross over study. J Diabetes Investig 2019; 10(2):352–357. Dostupné z DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12894>.
Labels
Diabetology Endocrinology Internal medicine
Topics Journals
Login
Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.

Login

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#