NASAL GLUCAGON DELIVERY IS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN INJECTABLE DELIVERY: A SIMULATED SEVERE HYPOGLYCEMIA RESCUE.

Objective: A severe hypoglycemia (SH) episode is an acute, high-stress moment for the caregivers of persons with diabetes (PWD). We compared the success rates of nasal glucagon (NG) and injectable glucagon (IG) administration for PWD-trained and untrained users in treating simulated SH episodes. Methods: Thirty-two PWD-trained users and 33 untrained users administered NG and IG to high-fidelity manikins simulating treatment of an SH emergency. Simulation rooms resembled common locations with typical diabetic supplies and stressor elements mimicking real-life SH environments. Success rate and time to administer glucagon were measured. Results: Of all the PWD-trained and untrained users, 58/64 (90.6%) could successfully deliver NG, while 5/63 (7.9%) could successfully deliver IG. For NG simulations, 28/31 (90.3%) PWD-trained users and 30/33 (90.9%) untrained users could successfully administer the dose (mean time 47.3 seconds and 44.5 seconds, respectively). For IG simulations, 5/32 (15.6%) PWD-trained users successfully injected IG (mean time 81.8 seconds), whereas none (0/31 [0%]) of the untrained users were successful. Reasons for unsuccessful administration of NG included oral administration and incomplete pushing of the device plunger. For IG, inability to perform reconstitution steps, partial dose delivery, and injection at an inappropriate site were the causes for failure. Conclusion: With or without training, the success rate for administering NG was 90.6%, whereas it was only 7.9% for IG. NG was easily and quickly administered even by untrained users, whereas training was necessary for successful administration of IG. NG may expand the community of caregivers who can help PWD during an SH episode. Abbreviations: IG = injectable glucagon; NG = nasal glucagon; PWD = person with diabetes; SH = severe hypoglycemia; T1D = type 1 diabetes; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Day-to-day fasting self-monitored blood glucose variability is associated with risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the SWITCH Trials.

AIMS: To investigate the association between day-to-day fasting self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) variability and risk of hypoglycaemia in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and to compare day-to-day fasting SMBG variability between treatments with insulin degludec (degludec) and insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrieved from two double-blind, randomized, treat-to-target, two-period (32 weeks each) crossover trials of degludec vs glargine U100 in T1D (SWITCH 1, n = 501) and T2D (SWITCH 2, n = 720). Available fasting SMBGs were used to determine the standard deviation (SD) of day-to-day fasting SMBG variability for each patient and the treatment combination. The association between day-to-day fasting SMBG variability and overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia was analysed for the pooled population using linear regression, with fasting SMBG variability included as a three-level factor defined by population tertiles. Finally, day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was compared between treatments. RESULTS: Linear regression showed that day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated with overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia risk in T1D and T2D (P < 0.05). Day-to-day fasting SMBG variability was significantly associated (P < 0.01) with all categories of hypoglycaemia risk, with the exception of severe hypoglycaemia in T2D when analysed within tertiles. Degludec was associated with 4% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability than glargine U100 in T1D (P = 0.0082) and with 10% lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability in T2D (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher day-to-day fasting SMBG variability is associated with an increased risk of overall symptomatic, nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia. Degludec has significantly lower day-to-day fasting SMBG variability vs glargine U100.

Prospective study evaluating the use of nasal glucagon for the treatment of moderate to severe hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes in a real-world setting.

In the present multicentre, open-label, prospective, phase III study, we evaluated the real-world effectiveness and ease of use of nasal glucagon (NG) in the treatment of moderate/severe hypoglycaemic events (HEs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Patients and caregivers were taught how to use NG (3 mg) to treat moderate/severe HEs, record the time taken to awaken or return to normal status, and measure blood glucose (BG) levels over time. Questionnaires were used to collect information about adverse events and ease of use of NG. In the efficacy analysis population, 69 patients experienced 157 HEs. In 95.7% patients, HEs resolved within 30 minutes of NG administration. In all the 12 severe HEs, patients awakened or returned to normal status within 15 minutes of NG administration without additional external medical help. Most caregivers reported that NG was easy to use. Most adverse events were local and of low to moderate severity. In this study, a single, 3-mg dose of NG demonstrated real-life effectiveness in treating moderate and severe HEs in adults with T1D. NG was well tolerated and easy to use.

Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: The SWITCH 1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Hypoglycemia, common in patients with type 1 diabetes, is a major barrier to achieving good glycemic control. Severe hypoglycemia can lead to coma or death. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether insulin degludec is noninferior or superior to insulin glargine U100 in reducing the rate of symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, randomized, crossover noninferiority trial involving 501 adults with at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor treated at 84 US and 6 Polish centers (January 2014-January 12, 2016) for two 32-week treatment periods, each with a 16-week titration and a 16-week maintenance period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 249) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 252) and randomized 1:1 to morning or evening dosing within each treatment sequence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of overall severe or blood glucose-confirmed (<56 mg/dL) symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes during the maintenance period. Secondary end points included the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes and proportion of patients with severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period. The noninferiority criterion for the primary end point and for the secondary end point of nocturnal hypoglycemia was defined as an upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for a rate ratio of 1.10 or lower; if noninferiority was established, 2-sided statistical testing for superiority was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 501 patients randomized (mean age, 45.9 years; 53.7% men), 395 (78.8%) completed the trial. During the maintenance period, the rates of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia were 2200.9 episodes per 100 person-years' exposure (PYE) in the insulin degludec group vs 2462.7 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group for a rate ratio (RR) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate difference, -130.31 episodes per 100 PYE; 95% CI, -193.5 to -67.16). The rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia were 277.1 per 100 PYE in the insulin degludec group vs 428.6 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group, for an RR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate difference, -61.94 episodes per 100 PYE; 95% CI, -83.85 to -40.03). A lower proportion of patients in the insulin degludec than in the insulin glargine U100 group experienced severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period (10.3%, 95% CI, 7.3%-13.3% vs 17.1%, 95% CI, 13.4%-20.8%, respectively; McNemar P = .002; risk difference, -6.8%; 95% CI, -10.8% to -2.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with type 1 diabetes and at least 1 risk factor for hypoglycemia, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034513.

TREATMENT INTENSIFICATION WITH INSULIN DEGLUDEC/INSULIN ASPART TWICE DAILY: RANDOMIZED STUDY TO COMPARE SIMPLE AND STEP-WISE TITRATION ALGORITHMS.

OBJECTIVE: This 26-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial in adults with type 2 diabetes compared the efficacy and safety of treatment intensification algorithms with twice-daily (BID) insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp). METHODS: Patients randomized 1:1 to IDegAsp BID used either a 'Simple' algorithm (twice-weekly dose adjustments based on a single prebreakfast and pre-evening meal self-monitored plasma glucose [SMPG] measurement; IDegAsp[BIDSimple], n = 136) or a 'Stepwise' algorithm (once-weekly dose adjustments based on the lowest of 3 pre-breakfast and 3 pre-evening meal SMPG values; IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise], n = 136). RESULTS: After 26 weeks, mean change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with IDegAsp[BIDSimple] was noninferior to IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise] (-15 mmol/mol versus -14 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval [CI] upper limit, <4 mmol/mol) (baseline HbA1c: 66.3 mmol/mol IDegAsp[BIDSimple] and 66.6 mmol/mol IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]). The proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) at the end of the trial was 66.9% with IDegAsp[BIDSimple] and 62.5% with IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]. Fasting plasma glucose levels were reduced with each titration algorithm (-1.51 mmol/L IDegAsp[BIDSimple] versus -1.95 mmol/L IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]). Weight gain was 3.8 kg IDegAsp[BIDSimple] versus 2.6 kg IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise], and rates of overall confirmed hypoglycemia (5.16 episodes per patient-year of exposure [PYE] versus 8.93 PYE) and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia (0.78 PYE versus 1.33 PYE) were significantly lower with IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise] versus IDegAsp[BIDSimple]. There were no significant differences in insulin dose increments between groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment intensification with IDegAsp[BIDSimple] was noninferior to IDegAsp[BIDStep-wise]. Both titration algorithms were well tolerated; however, the more conservative step-wise algorithm led to less weight gain and fewer hypoglycemic episodes. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01680341.