Effects of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U300 on glycaemic stability in individuals with type 1 diabetes: A multicentre, randomized controlled crossover study. Issue 12 (2nd September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Miura, Hiroshi; Sakaguchi, Kazuhiko; Otowa‐Suematsu, Natsu; Yamada, Tomoko; So, Anna; Komada, Hisako; Okada, Yuko; Hirota, Yushi; Tamori, Yoshikazu; Ogawa, Wataru
• Is Part Of: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. Volume 22:Issue 12(2020)
• Page Start: 2356
• Page End: 2363
• Publication Date: 2020-09-02
• Subjects: basal insulin -- clinical trial -- continuous glucose monitoring -- insulin therapy -- type 1 diabetes; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Obesity -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; Clinical pharmacology -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/dom.14161
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8902

Abstract

Abstract: To compare the effects of insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine U300 (IGlarU300) on glycaemic stability in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Materials and methods: In this multicentre, crossover trial, 46 individuals with type 1 diabetes and essentially undetectable circulating C‐peptide were randomly assigned to either the IDeg‐first/IGlarU300‐second group or the IGlarU300‐first/IDeg‐second group, and were treated with the respective basal insulins for 4‐week periods. Data were collected in the last week of each treatment period. The primary aim was to examine the potential non‐inferiority of IDeg relative to IGlarU300 with regard to day‐to‐day variability, as evaluated by the standard deviation (SD) of fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels. Intra‐day glycaemic variability and other variables were also determined by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Results: The SD of FBG for IDeg was non‐inferior to that for IGlarU300. The mean of FBG, coefficient of variation of FBG, and various glycaemic variability indexes determined by CGM did not differ between the two insulins. Whereas the administered doses of the insulins also did not differ, the mean glycaemic value was lower for IDeg than IGlarU300; the time above the target range (>180 mg/dL [10.0 mmol/L]) and the time below the target range (<70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]) were shorter and longer, respectively, for IDeg than IGlarU300. Conclusions: Our data suggest that IDeg and IGlarU300 have comparable glucose‐stabilizing effects in individuals with type 1 diabetes. However, the glucose‐lowering effect of IDeg may be greater than that of IGlarU300 when titrated with a unit‐based protocol.