RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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).
