The Effect of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 on Glucose Metrics Recorded During Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People With Type 1 Diabetes and Recurrent Nocturnal Severe Hypoglycemia.

AIM: Comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-recorded metrics during treatment with insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar-100) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a multicenter, two-year, randomized, crossover trial, including 149 adults with T1D and minimum one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycemia within the last two years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to treatment with IDeg or IGlar-100 and given the option of six days of blinded CGM twice during each treatment. CGM traces were reviewed for the percentage of time-within-target glucose range (TIR), time-below-range (TBR), time-above-range (TAR), and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Seventy-four participants were included in the analysis. Differences between treatments were greatest during the night (23:00-06:59). Treatment with IGlar-100 resulted in 54.0% vs 49.0% with IDeg TIR (70-180 mg/dL) (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: -4.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.1, -0.0, P = .049). TBR was lower with IDeg at level 1 (54-69 mg/dL) (ETD: -1.7% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.5], P < .05) and level 2 (<54 mg/dL) (ETD: -1.3% [95% CI: -2.1, -0.5], P = .001). TAR was higher with IDeg compared with IGlar-100 at level 1 (181-250 mg/dL) (ETD: 4.0% [95% CI: 0.8, 7.3], P < .05) and level 2 (> 250 mg/dL) (ETD: 4.0% [95% CI: 0.8, 7.2], P < .05). The mean CV was lower with IDeg than that with IGlar-100 (ETD: -3.4% [95% CI: -5.6, -1.2], P < .05). CONCLUSION: For people with T1D suffering from recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycemia, treatment with IDeg, compared with IGlar-100, results in a lower TBR and CV during the night at the expense of more TAR.

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.

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).

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.

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.