Comparative safety and efficacy of insulin degludec with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- 1.2k Downloads
To determine the safety and efficacy of insulin degludec versus glargine in patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes mellitus.
Databases were searched until July 5, 2017. We included randomized controlled trials comparing degludec with glargine in diabetic patients, each with a minimum of 16 weeks of follow-up.
Eighteen trials with 16,791 patients were included. Degludec was associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk for all confirmed hypoglycemia at the maintenance treatment period [estimated rate ratio (ERR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72‒0.92; P = 0.001], nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia at the entire (ERR 0.71; 95% CI 0.63‒0.80; P < 0.001) and maintenance treatment period (ERR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59‒0.71; P < 0.001), all irrespective of the pooled diabetic populations and follow-up durations. The differences in the rate of hypoglycemia were more pronounced in nocturnal period and maintenance period and in T2D than T1D patients. Degludec reduced the incidence of severe hypoglycemia in T2D [ERR 0.65; (0.52; 0.89); P = 0.005] but not T1D patients. HbA1c concentration was slightly higher in degludec over glargine but was not clinically relevant [estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.03; 95% CI − 0.00 to 0.06%; P = 0.06]. Fasting plasma glucose level was lower in degludec-treated patients (ETD − 0.28 mmol/L; 95% CI − 0.44 to − 0.11 mmol/L; P = 0.001). Several subgroup analyses showed largely consistent findings. The rates of adverse events including total mortality and cardiovascular events were not significantly different between two treatment strategies.
Insulin degludec appears to have better safety in reducing hypoglycemic events with similar efficacy compared with insulin glargine.
KeywordsInsulin degludec Insulin glargine Hypoglycemia Meta-analysis Randomized controlled trials
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81600312). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, writing of the report, and decision to submit the article for publication.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.
All of the eligible articles included in the meta-analysis stated that they had obtained informed consent from participants.
- 10.Heller S, Buse J, Fisher M, Garg S, Marre M, Merker L et al (2012) Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 1): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet 379:1489–1497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Garber AJ, King AB, Del PS, Sreenan S, Balci MK, Munoz-Torres M et al (2012) 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. Lancet 379:1498–1507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Sorli C, Warren M, Oyer D, Mersebach H, Johansen T, Gough SC (2013) Elderly patients with diabetes experience a lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec than with insulin glargine: a meta-analysis of phase IIIa trials. Drugs Aging 30:1009–1018CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(264–269):W64Google Scholar
- 21.Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook. 15 Dec 2015
- 23.Zinman B, DeVries JH, Bode B, Russell-Jones D, Leiter LA, Moses A et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec three times a week versus insulin glargine once a day in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: results of two phase 3, 26 week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trials. Lancet Diabet Endocrinol 1:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Gough SC, Bhargava A, Jain R, Mersebach H, Rasmussen S, Bergenstal RM (2013) Low-volume insulin degludec 200 units/ml once daily improves glycemic control similarly to insulin glargine with a low risk of hypoglycemia in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a 26-week, randomized, controlled, multinational, treat-to-target trial: the BEGIN LOW VOLUME trial. Diabet Care 36:2536–2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Onishi Y, Ono Y, Rabol R, Endahl L, Nakamura S (2013) Superior glycaemic control with once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus insulin glargine in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral drugs: a randomized, controlled phase 3 trial. Diabet Obes Metab 15:826–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Kumar A, Franek E, Wise J, Niemeyer M, Mersebach H, Simo R (2016) Efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus insulin glargine (U100) for 52 weeks in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 11:e163350Google Scholar
- 32.Meneghini L, Atkin SL, Gough SC, Raz I, Blonde L, Shestakova M et al (2013) The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec given in variable once-daily dosing intervals compared with insulin glargine and insulin degludec dosed at the same time daily: a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabet Care 36:858–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Mathieu C, Hollander P, Miranda-Palma B, Cooper J, Franek E, Russell-Jones D et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec in a flexible dosing regimen vs insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes (BEGIN: Flex T1): a 26-week randomized, treat-to-target trial with a 26-week extension. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98:1154–1162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 39.Horvath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A, Ebrahim SH, Gratzer TW, Plank J et al (2007) Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:D5613Google Scholar
- 40.Lingvay I, Perez MF, Garcia-Hernandez P, Norwood P, Lehmann L, Tarp-Johansen MJ et al (2016) Effect of insulin glargine up-titration vs insulin degludec/liraglutide on glycated hemoglobin levels in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: the DUAL V randomized clinical trial. JAMA 315:898–907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar