PATIENTS ACHIEVING GOOD GLYCEMIC CONTROL (HBA1c <7%) EXPERIENCE A LOWER RATE OF HYPOGLYCEMIA WITH INSULIN DEGLUDEC THAN WITH INSULIN GLARGINE: A META-ANALYSIS OF PHASE 3A TRIALS.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis to compare hypoglycemia rates of basal insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in patients with diabetes achieving good glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] <7% at end of trial). METHODS: In a preplanned meta-analysis, patient data from 7 randomized, treat-to-target, 26- or 52-week trials in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who administered IDeg (n = 2,899) or IGlar (n = 1,431) once daily were analyzed. Using a negative binomial regression model, this meta-analysis compared hypoglycemia rates in patients achieving HbA1c <7% at end of trial with IDeg (n = 1,347) and IGlar (n = 697). RESULTS: In all trials, IDeg was noninferior to IGlar in HbA1c reduction from baseline. At end of trial, 2,044 patients (T2DM, n = 1,661; T1DM, n = 383) achieved HbA1c <7%. The overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as plasma glucose <56 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia if requiring assistance, was significantly lower with IDeg versus IGlar (estimated rate ratio [ERR] IDeg:IGlar, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.98). The nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate, defined as occurring between midnight and 6:00 am, was significantly lower with IDeg (ERR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.77). In the maintenance period (16 weeks onward when average insulin dose and glycemic levels stabilized), the overall confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92) and the nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia rate was significantly lower (ERR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72) with IDeg versus IGlar. CONCLUSION: Patients with T1DM and T2DM achieved HbA1c <7% with significantly lower rates of overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia with IDeg versus IGlar. The lower hypoglycemia rate with IDeg was more pronounced in the maintenance period.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Basal insulin therapy does not stop loss of ß-cell function, which is the hallmark of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and thus diabetes control inevitably deteriorates. Insulin degludec is a new, ultra-longacting basal insulin. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In this 52 week, phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, undertaken at 123 sites in 12 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) of 7·0-10·0% after 3 months or more of any insulin regimen (with or without oral antidiabetic drugs). We randomly allocated eligible participants in a 3:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous insulin degludec or glargine, stratified by previous insulin regimen, via a central interactive response system. Basal insulin was titrated to a target plasma glucose concentration of 3·9-<5·0 mmol/L self-measured before breakfast. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 52 (non-inferiority limit of 0·4%) by ANOVA in the full analysis set. We assessed rates of hypoglycaemia in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00972283. FINDINGS: 744 (99%) of 755 participants randomly allocated degludec and 248 (99%) of 251 allocated glargine were included in the full analysis set (mean age 58·9 years [SD 9·3], diabetes duration 13·5 years [7·3], HbA(1c) 8·3% [0·8], and fasting plasma glucose 9·2 mmol/L [3·1]); 618 (82%) and 211 (84%) participants completed the trial. After 1 year, HbA(1c) decreased by 1·1% in the degludec group and 1·2% in the glargine group (estimated treatment difference [degludec-glargine] 0·08%, 95% CI -0·05 to 0·21), confirming non-inferiority. Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3·1 mmol/L or severe episodes requiring assistance) were lower with degludec than glargine (11·1 vs 13·6 episodes per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69 to 0·99; p=0·0359), as were rates of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia (1·4 vs 1·8 episodes per patient-year of exposure; 0·75, 0·58 to 0·99; p=0·0399). Rates of severe hypoglycaemia seemed similar (0·06 vs 0·05 episodes per patient-year of exposure for degludec and glargine) but were too low for assessment of differences. Rates of other adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: A policy of suboptimum diabetes control to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and its consequences in advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus might be unwarranted with newer basal insulins such as degludec, which are associated with lower risks of hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting basal insulin, once a day or three times a week versus insulin glargine once a day in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 16-week, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec is a new basal insulin that forms soluble multihexamer assemblies after subcutaneous injection, resulting in an ultra-long action profile. This study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec injected once a day or three times a week compared with insulin glargine once a day in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, who were inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs. METHODS: In this 16-week, randomised, open-label, parallel-group phase 2 trial, participants aged 18­75 years with type 2 diabetes and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) of 7·0­11·0% were enrolled and treated at 28 clinical sites in Canada, India, South Africa, and the USA. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio by computer-generated block randomisation to receive insulin degludec either once a day or three times a week or insulin glargine once a day, all in combination with metformin. Investigators were masked to data until database release. The primary outcome was HbA(1C) after 16 weeks of treatment. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00611884. FINDINGS: Of 367 patients screened, 245 were eligible for inclusion. 62 participants were randomly allocated to receive insulin degludec three times a week (starting dose 20 U per injection [1 U=9 nmol]), 60 to receive insulin degludec once a day (starting dose 10 U [1 U=6 nmol]; group A), 61 to receive insulin degludec once a day (starting dose 10 U [1 U=9 nmol]; group B), and 62 to receive insulin glargine (starting dose 10 U [1 U=6 nmol]) once a day. At study end, mean HbA(1C) levels were much the same across treatment groups, at 7·3% (SD 1·1), 7·4% (1·0), 7·5% (1·1), and 7·2% (0·9), respectively. Estimated mean HbA(1C) treatment differences from insulin degludec by comparison with insulin glargine were 0·08% (95% CI ­0·23 to 0·40) for the three dose per week schedule, 0·17% (­0·15 to 0·48) for group A, and 0·28% (­0·04 to 0·59) for group B. Few participants had hypoglycaemia and the number of adverse events was much the same across groups, with no apparent treatment-specific pattern. INTERPRETATION: Insulin degludec provides comparable glycaemic control to insulin glargine without additional adverse events and might reduce dosing frequency due to its ultra-long action profile. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Insulin degludec in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial of a new-generation ultra-long-acting insulin compared with insulin glargine.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a basal insulin that forms soluble multihexamers after subcutaneous injection, resulting in an ultra-long action profile. We assessed the efficacy and safety of IDeg formulations administered once daily in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 16-week, randomized, open-label trial, participants (mean: 45.8 years old, A1C 8.4%, fasting plasma glucose [FPG] 9.9 mmol/L, BMI 26.9 kg/m(2)) received subcutaneous injections of IDeg(A) (600 µmol/L; n = 59), IDeg(B) (900 µmol/L; n = 60), or insulin glargine (IGlar; n = 59), all given once daily in the evening. Insulin aspart was administered at mealtimes. RESULTS At 16 weeks, mean A1C was comparable for IDeg(A) (7.8 ± 0.8%), IDeg(B) (8.0 ± 1.0%), and IGlar (7.6 ± 0.8%), as was FPG (8.3 ± 4.0, 8.3 ± 2.8, and 8.9 ± 3.5 mmol/L, respectively). Estimated mean rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were 28% lower for IDeg(A) compared with IGlar (rate ratio [RR]: 0.72 [95% CI 0.52-1.00]) and 10% lower for IDeg(B) compared with IGlar (RR: 0.90 [0.65-1.24]); rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia were 58% lower for IDeg(A) (RR: 0.42 [0.25-0.69]) and 29% lower for IDeg(B) (RR: 0.71 [0.44-1.16]). Mean total daily insulin dose was similar to baseline. The frequency and pattern of adverse events was similar between insulin treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical exploratory phase 2 trial in people with type 1 diabetes, IDeg is safe and well tolerated and provides comparable glycemic control to IGlar at similar doses, with reduced rates of hypoglycemia.

A double-blind, randomized, dose-response study investigating the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the long-acting insulin analog detemir.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacodynamic profile and duration of action for five subcutaneous doses of insulin detemir (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, and 1.6 units/kg; 1 unit = 24 nmol) and one subcutaneous dose of NPH insulin (0.3 IU/kg; 1 IU = 6 nmol). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, six-period, crossover study was carried out as a 24-h isoglycemic clamp (7.2 mmol/l) in 12 type 1 diabetic patients. RESULTS: Duration of action for insulin detemir was dose dependent and varied from 5.7, to 12.1, to 19.9, to 22.7, to 23.2 h for 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, and 1.6 units/kg, respectively. Interpolation of the dose-response relationships for AUC(GIR) (area under the glucose infusion rate curve) revealed that a detemir dose of 0.29 units/kg would provide the same effect as 0.3 IU/kg NPH but has a longer duration of action (16.9 vs. 12.7 h, respectively). Lower between-subject variability was observed for insulin detemir on duration of action (0.4 units/kg insulin detemir vs. 0.3 IU/kg NPH, P < 0.05) and GIR(max) (maximal glucose infusion rate) (0.2 and 0.4 units/kg insulin detemir vs. 0.3 IU/kg NPH, both P < 0.05). Assessment of endogenous glucose production (EGP) and peripheral glucose uptake (PGU) resulted in an AOC(EGP) (area over the EGP curve) of 636 mg/kg (95% CI 279-879) vs. 584 (323-846) and an AUC(PGU) (area under the PGU curve) of 173 (47-316) vs. 328 (39-617) for 0.29 units/kg detemir vs. 0.3 IU/kg NPH, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that insulin detemir provides a flat and protracted pharmacodynamic profile.

[Will publication of quality indicators in the health service improve the quality? International experiences and Danish perspectives]. / Fører offentliggørelse af kvalitetsmålinger i sundhedsvaesenet til bedre kvalitet? Internationale erfaringer og danske perspektiver.

It is well known that publication of hospital quality indicators may lead to improving of treatments. But the publication can also have some negative side effects: Focus may shift to the evaluated areas at the expense of non-evaluated areas. The most ill patients may be sorted out and high risk patients may be transferred to other hospitals or discharged in order to avoid their dying during hospitalisation and improve statistics. Overestimation of patient risk in order to improve relative treatment outcome. Increasing flow of patients to hospitals with high scores on quality indicators may cause imbalance between activities and budgets and hence longer waiting times and reduced quality of treatment. Negative publicity due to low scores on quality indicators may lead to under-utilisation of hospital capacity, patient and staff insecurity and staff wastage. Thus, publication of quality indicators may improve quality within the health sector, but it is very important to recognise potential pitfalls and negative side effects.