Effect of insulin analogues on frequency of non-severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes prone to severe hypoglycaemia: The HypoAna trial

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia

CONTEXT

Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on nocturnal glycaemia assessed by plasma glucose profiles in people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia

AIM

To compare nocturnal glucose profiles according to hourly plasma glucose measurements during treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in a cohort of people with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The HypoDeg trial is a 2-year investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled crossover trial in 149 participants randomized to treatment with insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 for 12 months each. The 51 participants in this predefined substudy stayed at least one night in hospital during each treatment arm for plasma glucose samples to be taken. Endpoints were glucose profiles, including mean plasma glucose, glycaemic variability and risk of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There were no differences between treatments regarding mean plasma glucose. We saw a flatter glucose profile during insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 treatment, which had a nadir at 4:00 AM, with a subsequent rise. During treatment with insulin degludec, the participants had lower glycaemic variability, with an estimated treatment difference of -4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.1 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Participants treated with insulin degludec were less likely to experience nocturnal hypoglycaemia below 3.0 mmol/L (hazard ratio 0.36 [95% CI 0.17-0.73; P < 0.05]).

CONCLUSION

Based on nocturnal plasma glucose measurements, treatment with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 administered in the evening results in lower glycaemic variability and lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia without differences in mean plasma glucose.

[Diagnosis and insulin therapy of type 1 diabetes mellitus (Update 2023)]

This guideline summarizes diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, including accompanying autoimmune disorders, insulin therapy regimens and glycemic target values.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Recorded Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec or Insulin Glargine U100 in People with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Nocturnal Severe Hypoglycemia

Background and Aims: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is mainly a consequence of inappropriate basal insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and may compromise optimal glycemic control. Insulin degludec is associated with a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in T1D. As nocturnal hypoglycemia is often asymptomatic, we applied continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to detect a more precise occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in the HypoDeg trial, comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine U100 in people with T1D and previous nocturnal severe hypoglycemia. Materials and Methods: In the HypoDeg trial, 149 people with T1D were included in an open-label randomized cross-over trial. Sixty-seven participants accepted optional participation in the predefined substudy of 4 × 6 days of blinded CGM requiring completion of at least one CGM period in each treatment arm. CGM data were reviewed for hypoglycemic events. Results: Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a relative rate reduction (RRR) of 36% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10%-54%; P < 0.05) in nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.9 mmol/L), corresponding to an absolute rate reduction (ARR) of 0.85 events per person-week. In nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia (≤3.0 mmol/L), we found an RRR of 53% (95% CI: 36%-65%; P < 0.001), corresponding to an ARR of 0.75 events per person-week. At the lower detection limit of the CGM (≤2.2 mmol/L), treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a significant RRR of 58% (95% CI: 23%-77%; P = 0.005). The reductions were primarily due to significant RRRs in asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Conclusion: In people with T1D, prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycemia, insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 significantly reduces nocturnal CGM-recorded hypoglycemia. www.clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02192450).

Comparison of treatment with insulin degludec and glargine U100 in patients with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia: The HypoDeg randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial

AIM

To investigate whether the long-acting insulin analogue insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 reduces the risk of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Adults with T1D and at least one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the last 2 years were included in a 2-year prospective, randomized, open, multicentre, crossover trial. A total of 149 patients were randomized 1:1 to basal-bolus therapy with insulin degludec and insulin aspart or insulin glargine U100 and insulin aspart. Each treatment period lasted 1 year and consisted of 3 months of run-in or crossover followed by 9 months of maintenance. The primary endpoint was the number of blindly adjudicated nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia. We analysed all endpoints by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a 28% (95% CI: 9%-43%; P = .02) relative rate reduction (RRR) of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia at level 1 (≤3.9 mmol/L), a 37% (95% CI: 16%-53%; P = .002) RRR at level 2 (≤3.0 mmol/L), and a 35% (95% CI: 1%-58%; P = .04) RRR in all-day severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T1D prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia have lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia and all-day severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100.

Synthetic long-acting insulin analogs for the management of type 1 diabetes: an update

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes is characterized by insulin deficiency and requires near-physiological insulin replacement. In most patients, this is accomplished by basal bolus therapy consisting of a long-acting basal insulin administered once or twice daily and short-acting insulin with main meals. Several long-acting insulin analogs have been developed to optimize basal insulin therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the design of - and data from - randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess glucose lowering efficacy and safety of long-acting insulin analogs for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the non-inferiority treat-to-target design of insulin, RCTs treatment differences primarily appear as differences in hypoglycemia risk. Data suggest that the first generation long-acting insulin analogs insulin glargine U100 and insulin detemir have a similar glucose lowering efficacy compared to NPH insulin but a lower risk of hypoglycemia, particularly during nighttime. The newer analogs insulin glargine U300 and insulin degludec provide non-inferior efficacy, although insulin glargine U300 is less potent unit-to-unit. Insulin degludec reduces hypoglycemia risk compared to insulin glargine U100. Future studies should explore the potential for further improvement of treatment results in type 1 diabetes by a structured approach to personalization of basal insulin therapy.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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 mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

Association of insulin regimens with severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: A Danish case-control study

AIMS

To evaluate the risk of severe hypoglycaemia for patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) when exposed to insulin regimens including human insulin only or insulin analogues.

METHODS

A total of 19 896 patients with T1D were extracted from the Danish National Patient Register. Of these, 6379 T1D patients experiencing 1 of more severe hypoglycaemic episodes (total of 17 242 episodes) were matched 1:1 with T1D patients without severe hypoglycaemia. A logistic regression model with last insulin regimen used as exposure was constructed to analyse the effect on severe hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

People on a basal-bolus regimen with insulin analogues had a reduced risk of severe hypoglycaemia of 39% (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.54-0.68) compared to patients on a basal-bolus human insulin only regimen. Furthermore, patients on a premixed regimen containing an insulin analogue had a 58% (odds ratio: 0.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.49) reduced risk of severe hypoglycaemia compared to patients on premixed human insulin only.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that use of a basal-bolus insulin regimen with an insulin analogue is safer with respect to severe hypoglycaemia in patients with T1D than the use of a basal-bolus human insulin only regimen.

The effect of insulin degludec on risk of symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes and high risk of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia (the HypoDeg trial): study rationale and design

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycaemia, especially nocturnal, remains the main limiting factor of achieving good glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes. The effect of first generation long-acting insulin analogues in reducing nocturnal hypoglycaemia is well documented in patient with type 1 diabetes. The effect of the newer long-acting insulin degludec on risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia remains undocumented in patients with type 1 diabetes and recurrent severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The HypoDeg trial is designed to investigate whether insulin degludec in comparison with insulin glargine U100 is superior in limiting the occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in patients with recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia. This paper reports the study design of the HypoDeg trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

A Danish investigator-initiated, prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE), multicentre, two-year cross-over study investigating the effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 on frequency of nocturnal hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes and one or more episodes of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the preceding two years as the major inclusion criteria. Patients are randomised (1:1) to basal therapy with insulin degludec or insulin glargine. Insulin aspart is used as bolus therapy in both treatment arms.

DISCUSSION

In contrast to most other insulin studies the HypoDeg trial includes only patients at high risk of hypoglycaemia. The HypoDeg trial will compare treatment with insulin degludec to insulin glargine U100 in terms of risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes in patients with type 1 diabetes with the greatest potential to benefit from near-physiological insulin replacement therapy. www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02192450.

[Diagnosis and insulin therapy of type 1 diabetes mellitus (Update 2019)]

This guideline summarizes diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, including accompanying autoimmune disorders, insulin therapy regimens and glycemic target values.

Comparison of the HAT study, the largest global hypoglycaemia study to date, with similar large real-world studies

AIMS

Optimal diabetes care requires clear understanding of the incidence of hypoglycaemia in real-world clinical practice. Current data on hypoglycaemia are generally limited to those reported from randomised controlled clinical trials. The Hypoglycaemia Assessment Tool (HAT) study, a non-interventional real-world study of hypoglycaemia, assessed hypoglycaemia in 27 585 individuals across 24 countries. The present study compared the incidence of hypoglycaemia from the HAT study with other similarly designed, large, real-world studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search of PubMed (1995-2017) for population-based studies of insulin-treated patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D), excluding clinical trials and reviews, identified comparable population-based studies reporting the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

The 24 comparative studies, including more than 24 000 participants with T1D and more than 160 000 participants with T2D, varied in design, size, inclusion criteria, definitions of hypoglycaemia and method of recording hypoglycaemia. Reported rates (events per patient-year [PPY]) of hypoglycaemia were higher in patients with T1D than in those with T2D (overall T1D, 21.8-73.3 and T2D, 1.3-37.7; mild/non-severe T1D, 29.0-126.7 and T2D, 1.3-41.5; severe T1D, 0.7-5.8 and T2D, 0.0-2.5; nocturnal T1D, 2.6-11.3 and T2D, 0.38-9.7) and were similar to the ranges found in the HAT study.

CONCLUSIONS

The HAT data on hypoglycaemia incidence were comparable with those from other real-world studies and indicate a high incidence of hypoglycaemia among insulin-treated patients. Differences in rates among studies are mostly explained by differences in patient populations and study methodology. The goal of reducing hypoglycaemia should be a target for continued educational and evidence-based pharmacological interventions.

Exposure to hypoglycemia and risk of stroke

In the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus, maintaining a euglycemic state represents one of the key challenges. Improper dosing and administration of glucose-lowering drugs is associated with an increased risk of recurrent hypoglycemia episodes. In addition, the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in diabetic patients, particularly myocardial infarctions and strokes, is well established. Current research indicates a potential link between the baseline risk of cardio/cerebrovascular events in diabetic patients and exposure to hypoglycemia. In this review of the literature, we aim to determine if a relationship exists between recurrent hypoglycemia and adverse neurovascular events.

The Incidence of Hypoglycemia among Insulin-Treated Patients with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes: Bangladeshi Cohort of International Operations-Hypoglycemia Assessment Tool Study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bangladeshi cohort of the International Operations-Hypoglycemia Assessment Tool study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with either T1DM or T2DM, aged ≥18 years, treated with insulin (any regimen) for >12 months, and completed self-assessment questionnaires (SAQs) to record demography, treatment information, and hypoglycemia during the 6-month retrospective and 4-week prospective periods (a total of 7 months) were enrolled in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 1179 patients were enrolled and completed the SAQ1 (T1DM, n = 25; T2DM, n = 1154). Almost all patients (T1DM: 100.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 86.3%, 100.0%] and T2DM: 97.0% [95% CI: 95.9%, 97.9%]) experienced at least 1 hypoglycemic event prospectively. The estimated rates of any and severe hypoglycemia were 26.6 (95% CI: 19.8, 35.0) and 14.1 (95% CI: 9.3, 20.4) events per patient-per year (PPY), respectively, for patients with T1DM and 18.3 (95% CI: 17.4, 19.2) and 12.1 (95% CI: 11.4, 12.9) events PPY, respectively, for patients with T2DM during the prospective period. At baseline, mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (±standard deviation) was 8.1 (±1.8%) for T1DM and 8.8 (±1.8%) for T2DM. Hypoglycemic rate was independent of HbA1c levels and types of insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first patient dataset of self-reported hypoglycemia in Bangladesh; results confirm that hypoglycemia is underreported.

Effect of Insulin Analogs on Frequency of Non-Severe Hypoglycemia in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Severe Hypoglycemia: Much Higher Rates Detected by Continuous Glucose Monitoring than by Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose-The HypoAna Trial

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is an increasingly important endpoint in clinical diabetes trials. The assessment of hypoglycemia should therefore be as complete as possible. Blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides an improved opportunity to capture asymptomatic and nocturnal events. Here we report results from the HypoAna trial comparing all-analog-insulin therapy (aspart/detemir) with all-human-insulin therapy (neutral protamine Hagedorn/regular) on non-severe hypoglycemia (symptomatic and asymptomatic hypoglycemia) as assessed by blinded CGM and compared with data obtained by self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes and recurrent severe hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients completed a substudy of 4 × 3 days of blinded CGM. CGM traces were reviewed for hypoglycemic events lasting 15 min or longer.

RESULTS

At the threshold ≤3.9 mmol/L, the per-protocol analysis demonstrated a 40% rate reduction (95% confidence interval [CI] 20%-60%; P = 0.002) in nocturnal non-severe hypoglycemia during analog treatment, mainly due to a 40% rate reduction (95% CI 0%-70%; P = 0.03) of nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia. Similar nonsignificant trends were seen at the glucose threshold ≤3.0 mmol/L. Overall CGM-detected that nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia ≤3.9 mmol/L was ∼17 times more frequent than SMBG-detected episodes (52 vs. 3 events/patient-year). This translates into a time needed to treat one patient with insulin analogs to prevent one episode that is 34 times shorter using CGM data than SMBG data (1.4 vs. 47 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Capturing hypoglycemic events by the conventional method of SMBG in patients with impaired awareness reveals only a limited number of events. Blinded CGM can provide more complete data, particularly in terms of asymptomatic and nocturnal events.

Self-reported hypoglycemia in insulin-treated patients with diabetes: Results from an international survey on 7289 patients from nine countries

AIMS

Hypoglycemia constitutes a significant barrier to achieving glycemic control with insulin in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Historically, it has been difficult to accurately verify the rates of hypoglycemia within a clinical setting and there is a need for high-quality, real-world data to ascertain the true rates of hypoglycemia in clinical practice. The global Hypoglycemia Assessment Tool (HAT) study was designed to assess the global incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with insulin-treated diabetes, and the results have indicated that the overall incidence of hypoglycemia is high, with large variations between geographical regions.

METHODS

The International Operations HAT (IO HAT) study retrospectively and prospectively assessed the incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with insulin-treated diabetes in Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates.

RESULTS

During the prospective period, hypoglycemic events were reported by 97.4% of patients with type 1 diabetes and 95.3% of those with type 2 diabetes, with an estimated rate of 6.86 events per patient per month (PPPM) for patients with type 1 diabetes and 2.37 events PPPM for patients with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

These results represent the first patient-reported dataset on hypoglycemia in the participating countries and confirm that hypoglycemia is under-reported and more widespread than previously believed. Although the incidence of hypoglycemia was variable among patients on different treatment regimens, there were substantial impacts on both productivity and healthcare utilization following an episode of hypoglycemia. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02306681.

Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: The SWITCH 1 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Hypoglycemia, common in patients with type 1 diabetes, is a major barrier to achieving good glycemic control. Severe hypoglycemia can lead to coma or death.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether insulin degludec is noninferior or superior to insulin glargine U100 in reducing the rate of symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Double-blind, randomized, crossover noninferiority trial involving 501 adults with at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor treated at 84 US and 6 Polish centers (January 2014-January 12, 2016) for two 32-week treatment periods, each with a 16-week titration and a 16-week maintenance period.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 249) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 252) and randomized 1:1 to morning or evening dosing within each treatment sequence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the rate of overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed (<56 mg/dL) symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes during the maintenance period. Secondary end points included the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes and proportion of patients with severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period. The noninferiority criterion for the primary end point and for the secondary end point of nocturnal hypoglycemia was defined as an upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for a rate ratio of 1.10 or lower; if noninferiority was established, 2-sided statistical testing for superiority was conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 501 patients randomized (mean age, 45.9 years; 53.7% men), 395 (78.8%) completed the trial. During the maintenance period, the rates of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia were 2200.9 episodes per 100 person-years' exposure (PYE) in the insulin degludec group vs 2462.7 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group for a rate ratio (RR) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate difference, -130.31 episodes per 100 PYE; 95% CI, -193.5 to -67.16). The rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia were 277.1 per 100 PYE in the insulin degludec group vs 428.6 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group, for an RR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate difference, -61.94 episodes per 100 PYE; 95% CI, -83.85 to -40.03). A lower proportion of patients in the insulin degludec than in the insulin glargine U100 group experienced severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period (10.3%, 95% CI, 7.3%-13.3% vs 17.1%, 95% CI, 13.4%-20.8%, respectively; McNemar P = .002; risk difference, -6.8%; 95% CI, -10.8% to -2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with type 1 diabetes and at least 1 risk factor for hypoglycemia, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034513.

Comparing effects of insulin analogues and human insulin on nocturnal glycaemia in hypoglycaemia-prone people with Type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To assess the difference between analogue and human insulin with regard to nocturnal glucose profiles and risk of hypoglycaemia in people with recurrent severe hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

A total of 72 people [46 men, mean ± sd age 54 ± 12 years, mean ± sd HbA_1c 65 ± 12 mmol/mol (8.1 ± 1.1%), mean ± sd duration of diabetes 30 ± 14 years], who participated in a 2-year randomized, crossover trial of basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir/insulin aspart or human NPH insulin/human regular insulin (the HypoAna trial) were studied for 2 nights during each treatment. Venous blood was drawn hourly during sleep. Primary endpoints were nocturnal glucose profiles and occurrence of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose ≤ 3.9 mmol/l).

RESULTS

During insulin analogue treatment, the mean nocturnal plasma glucose level was significantly higher than during treatment with human insulin (10.6 vs 8.1 mmol/l). The fasting plasma glucose level was similar between the treatments. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia was registered during 41/101 nights (41%) in the human insulin arm and 19/117 nights (16%) in the insulin analogue arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.45; P < 0.0001) with insulin analogue.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with insulin analogue reduces the occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia assessed by nocturnal glucose profiles in people with Type 1 diabetes prone to severe hypoglycaemia. Nocturnal glucose profiles provide a more comprehensive assessment of clinical benefit of insulin regimens as compared to conventional recording of hypoglycaemia.

The economic impact of insulin-related hypoglycemia in Denmark: an analysis using the Local Impact of Hypoglycemia Tool

AIMS

To estimate the direct cost of hypoglycemia in insulin-treated adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Denmark.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Local Impact of Hypoglycemia Tool (LIHT) was used to estimate the costs associated with insulin-related hypoglycemia. Average utilization of healthcare resources, including the costs of pre-hospitalization, hospital admission, healthcare professional contact and follow-up, glucose/glucagon, and extra SMBG tests to monitor blood glucose following an episode, was used to calculate an average cost per severe and per non-severe hypoglycemic episode. The cost per episode was then applied to the rates of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia in people with T1DM and T2DM in Denmark.

RESULTS

The direct cost of insulin-related hypoglycemia in Denmark is DKK 96.2 million per year, which equates to EUR 12.9 million. For people with T1DM prone to severe hypoglycemia (defined as having ≥2 severe episodes in the past year), the cost per person per year increases by DKK 4,155 compared with the T1DM population average, and for people with T2DM prone to non-severe hypoglycemia (defined as having ≥1 non-severe episode in the last 4 weeks), the cost increases by DKK 647 per person per year compared with the T2DM population average.

CONCLUSIONS

The LIHT highlights the substantial economic burden of insulin-related hypoglycemia in Denmark, and provides a means to estimate the savings that could be made by lowering hypoglycemia rates. For example, the costs associated with using a new insulin or introducing a patient education program could be offset with the cost saving from reducing hypoglycemia.

Are Changes in Heart Rate Variability During Hypoglycemia Confounded by the Presence of Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy in Patients with Diabetes?

BACKGROUND

We have recently shown how the combination of information from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and heart rate variability (HRV) measurements can be used to construct an algorithm for prediction of hypoglycemia in both bedbound and active patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Questions remain on how cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) influences these measurable changes. This study aims to examine if changes in HRV during hypoglycemia are confounded by the presence of CAN.

METHODS

Twenty-one adults (hereof 13 men) with T1D prone to hypoglycemia were recruited and monitored with CGM and a Holter device while they performed normal daily activities. CAN was diagnosed using two cardiac reflex tests: (1) deep breathing and (2) orthostatic hypotension and end organ symptoms. Early CAN was defined as the presence of one abnormal reflex test and severe CAN was defined as two abnormal tests or one abnormal test combined with symptoms of autonomic neuropathy.

RESULTS

A total of 19 hypoglycemic and corresponding euglycemia periods were identified among the 21 patients. Eleven patients were diagnosed with CAN, hereof five with severe CAN. The HRV parameter low frequency (LF) was significantly (P = 0.029) reduced during hypoglycemia. Changes in LF during hypoglycemia were not different between patients with and without CAN, -0.64 versus -0.48 log(LF) (P = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that there are measurable changes in HRV during hypoglycemia, and present in both patients with and without CAN.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir and insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes who are prone to recurrent severe hypoglycemia

OBJECTIVE

Based on the data of the HypoAna trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00346996), a short-term cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing an all insulin analogue regimen with an all human insulin regimen in people with type 1 diabetes who are prone to recurrent severe hypoglycemia.

METHODS

Clinical data from the HypoAna trial and Danish cost data related to the treatment of severe hypoglycemia were used to populate a 1-year cost-effectiveness analysis. Hypoglycemia quality-of-life data were based on previously published utility values, used to calculate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the analysis. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The insulin analogue regimen was associated with greater total costs compared with the human insulin regimen (20,418 DKK [1972 GBP] vs. 18,558 DKK [1793 GBP], respectively), primarily driven by the difference in insulin costs. Total costs for corrective actions for hypoglycemic events, however, were lower in the insulin analogue group (927 DKK [89 GBP]) compared with the human insulin group (1311 DKK [127 GBP]), primarily due to a lower event rate. QALYs were higher with insulin analogues vs. human insulin (difference 0.0672). The resulting ICER was 27,685 DKK (2674 GBP) per QALY gained, which is well below the generally accepted cost-effectiveness threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis shows that treating people with type 1 diabetes who are prone to recurrent severe hypoglycemia with an insulin analogue regimen is cost-effective compared with a human insulin regimen.