Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec 100 U/mL in older participants in the BRIGHT trial

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins.

CONCLUSIONS

The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Use of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Gla-300 in Special Populations: A Narrative Mini-Review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hypoglycemia and insulin-related adverse events are crucial barriers to effective diabetes management, particularly in the elderly, people with renal impairment, people with diabetes fasting during Ramadan, or people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). There is a scarcity of clinical and real-world evidence assessing the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in these special populations. To understand the entirety of evidence, this mini-review elaborates on the use of Gla-300 in diabetes management among special populations.

METHODS

Clinical and real-world evidence related to the use of Gla-300 among special populations with diabetes were retrieved using PUBMED and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

Gla-300 has shown improved glycemic control with stable insulin action and low risk of hypoglycemia in diverse groups with diabetes. It also appears to have an acceptable safety profile during Ramadan fasting. However, adequate monitoring and adjustment of insulin dose on an individual basis should be considered.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 is a second-generation basal insulin with proven benefits of reduced risk of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control in special populations of people with diabetes.

Clinical Use of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Hypothetical Case Studies

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease, with many individuals eventually requiring basal insulin therapy to maintain glycaemic control. However, there exists considerable therapeutic inertia to the prompt initiation and optimal titration of basal insulin therapy due to barriers that include fear of injections, hypoglycaemia, weight gain, and burdensome regimens. Hypoglycaemia is thought to be a major barrier to optimal glycaemic control and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Newer second-generation basal insulin analogues provide comparable glycaemic control with lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with first-generation basal insulin analogues. The present review article discusses clinical evidence for one such second-generation basal insulin analogue, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300), in the context of hypothetical case studies that are representative of individuals who may attend routine clinical practice. These case studies discuss individualised treatment needs for people with T2D who are insulin-naïve or pre-treated. Clinical characteristics such as older age, frequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia, and renal impairment, which are known risk factors for hypoglycaemia, are also considered.

Persistent Hypoglycemia Induced by Long-acting Insulin Degludec

A 58-year-old Japanese man was brought to the emergency room due to disturbance of consciousness. He regained consciousness on the day of admission and started taking hospital meals, but he needed intravenous glucose administration for eight days. The total amount of glucose administration was 4,464 g. It took over three weeks for exogenous insulin to be almost undetectable. While degludec binds to albumin and exerts glucose-lowering effects for a long time, the above-mentioned period of three weeks was consistent with the half-life of albumin. Hypoglycemia induced by massive dose of insulin degludec is persistent and prominent.

Switching from Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) Insulin to Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL in Older and Younger Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Older age and longer disease duration are key risk factors for hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who receive insulin. Previous studies have shown that insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) improves glycemic control and reduces the risk of hypoglycemia, but whether this effect is observed in older patients switching from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin is unclear.

METHODS

In this multicenter, observational study involving patients with T2D aged ≥ 18 years with glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) ≥ 8%, we compared the safety and effectiveness of switching from NPH insulin to Gla-300 in subgroups of patients differing by age (< 65 vs. ≥ 65 years) and duration of diabetes (≤ 13 vs. > 13 years).

RESULTS

A total of 469 participants were included in the study. From baseline to 6 months after switching to Gla-300, mean HbA_1c decreased from 9.23% to 8.13% (p < 0.001) among patients aged ≤ 65 years (224 patients), and from 9.15% to 8.20% (p < 0.001) among those aged > 65 years (245 patients). The proportion of patients with ≥ 1 episodes of hypoglycemia decreased from 19.1% to 13.6% (p = 0.11) among those aged ≤ 65 years, and from 26.9% to 13.0% (p < 0.001) among those aged > 65 years; the reduction was significantly greater in those aged > 65 years (p = 0.001). The reduction in HbA_1c was greater in those with a disease duration ≤ 13 years (p = 0.007), but the reduction in hypoglycemia was greater in those with a disease duration > 13 years (p < 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

The switch from NPH insulin to Gla-300 improved glycemic control in older patients with T2D and in those with a longer disease duration. Older patients with T2D and those with a longer disease duration benefited even more from the switch to Gla-300 than younger patients and those with a shorter disease duration, with significantly greater reductions in the risk of hypoglycemia.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec 100 U/mL in older participants in the BRIGHT trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in predefined (</≥65 years) and post hoc (</≥70 years) age groups of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the BRIGHT trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BRIGHT was the first head-to-head randomized trial comparing Gla-300 and Deg-100 in insulin-naïve adults with T2D. In this subanalysis, endpoints were studied by predefined (</≥65 years, N = 596/333) and post hoc (</≥70 years, N = 768/161) age groups.

RESULTS

Heterogeneity of treatment effect was observed for HbA1c reductions across the </≥70 years subgroups, but not across the </≥ 65 years subgroups, with greater HbA1c reductions with Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 in those 70 years or older (least squares mean -0.34% [95% confidence interval: -0.589% to -0.100%]). There was no significant heterogeneity of treatment effect for incidence and rates of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) hypoglycaemia across any age subgroups over 24 weeks, but numerically lower incidence and rates were consistently observed for Gla-300 versus IDeg-100 in the 65 years or older and 70 years or older age groups in the initial 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Gla-300 may be a suitable treatment option in the growing population of older people with T2D. Further investigation is required to determine Gla-300 glycaemic benefits in high-risk populations without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.