Comparison of treatment with insulin detemir and NPH in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes. A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this retrospective study was to compare glycemic control, pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treated with (a) insulin detemir and (b) insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH). METHODS: A total of 192 women with GDM were included in the analysis. Ninety-eight women received detemir, while 94 women received NPH. Data regarding medical history, glycemic control, and time and mode of delivery, as well as neonatal outcomes, were recorded. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. There were no differences with respect to the week of insulin initiation, total insulin dose, duration of insulin therapy, daily insulin dose/weight in early and late pregnancy, or the number of insulin injections per day. Maternal overall weight gain during pregnancy and weight gain per week did not differ either. The detemir group had slightly lower HbA1c levels at the end of gestation [median: det 5.2% (33 mmol/mol) vs NPH 5.4% (36 mmol/mol), p=0.035). There were no cases of hypoglycemia or allergic reactions in the two groups. There were also no differences regarding neonatal outcomes according to the available data, given that data in some cases were missing. CONCLUSION: The use of insulin detemir was found to be equally effective and safe compared to NPH in women with GDM.

Probing the mechanism of reduced in vivo potency of insulin detemir.

BACKGROUND: Insulin detemir (IDet) is an insulin analog used to treat diabetes. IDet shows full efficacy but reduced potency compared to human insulin (HI) in both man and rat. In contrast, in pigs and dogs, IDet appears to have full in vivo potency. Non-receptor mediated degradation (NRMD) has previously been suggested as an explanation for the low potency of IDet, but this hypothesis has not been investigated further until now. Bacitracin is a nonspecific protease inhibitor which we hypothesized could inhibit NRMD of IDet in rats. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Healthy male rats instrumented with permanent catheters underwent euglycemic clamp during constant infusion of either HI or IDet at effect-matched doses with co-infusion of vehicle or bacitracin. RESULTS: Plasma concentrations of IDet increased significantly (p < 0.005) during bacitracin compared to vehicle co-infusion and the concomitant increase in glucose infusion rate (GIR, p < 0.001) required to maintain euglycemic clamp indicates that the IDet rescued from NRMD indeed was active. No significant differences were detected with co-infusions of HI with either bacitracin or vehicle. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of NRMD of IDet which can be inhibited by bacitracin may partly explain the reduced potency of IDet observed in rats and likely also in man.

Insulin Detemir Versus Glibenclamide in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been shown to improve both maternal and neonatal outcomes. For women with GDM who require glucose-lowering medication, insulin is regarded as the drug of choice by most medical societies. Oral therapy, with metformin or glibenclamide, is a reasonable alternative in certain medical circumstances. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) vs. glibenclamide for GDM when glycemic control cannot be achieved through lifestyle modification and diet. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 115 women with singleton pregnancy and GDM treated with IDet or glibenclamide. GDM was diagnosed via the two-step oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) of 50 grams glucose, followed by 100 grams. Maternal characteristics and outcomes (preeclampsia and weight gain) and neonatal outcomes (birth weight and percentile, hypoglycemia, jaundice, and respiratory morbidity) were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 67 women received IDet and 48 glibenclamide. Maternal characteristics, weight gain, and the incidence of preeclampsia were similar in both groups. Neonatal outcomes were also similar. The proportion of large for gestational age (LGA) infants was 20.8% in the glibenclamide group compared to 14.9% in the IDet group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women with GDM, glucose control on IDet yielded comparable results as on glibenclamide, except for a significantly lower rate of LGA neonates.

ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL AND LABORATORY PARAMETERS CHILDREN WITH DIABETES MELLIUS TYPE 1 USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF INSULIN PREPARATIONS.

A comparative analysis of clinical and laboratory parameters was carried out in 49 children. The patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the type of insulin they received. Group 1 included 20 children who used Insulin human (Insulatard), group 2 included 15 children using insulin Glargine, and group 3 included 14 children using insulin Detemir. All children using Detemir and Glargine used short acting insulin Aspart. Those using Insulin human (Insulatard) used Human insulin (rDNA, Actrapid) in addition. In all children, blood glucose, glycohemoglobin and cholesterol were determined by laboratory methods. Statistical calculations were carried out using a statistical package at a confidence level of p＜0.05. A significant difference was found between the mean values of glycohemoglobin and glucose of Glargine users and patients with using Insulin human (Insulatard) (p≺0.05). These indicators were lower in Glargine users. There is a positive correlation between doses of Regular insulin and Insulin human (Insulatard) with body weight and height. There is a positive correlation between dose of Detemir and body mass. However, no such relationship between Glargine, body mass and height was recorded. It was a negative correlation between its dose Glargine with glycohemoglobin and also between glucose and cholesterol using Glargine.

Effectiveness, safety, initial optimal dose, and optimal maintenance dose range of basal insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Among 11 163 citations retrieved, 35 publications met the planned criteria. From meta-analyses and network meta-analyses, we found that when injecting basal insulin regimens at bedtime, the optimal choice in order of most to least effective might be glargine U-300 or degludec U-100, glargine U-100 or detemir, followed by neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH). Injecting glargine U-100 in the morning may be more effective (ie, more patients archiving glycated hemoglobin < 7.0%) and lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than injecting it at bedtime. The optimal starting dose for the initiation of any basal insulins can be 0.10-0.20 U/kg/day. There is no eligible evidence to investigate the optimal maintenance dose for basal insulins. CONCLUSIONS: The five basal insulins are effective for the target population. Glargine U-300, degludec U-100, glargine U-100, and detemir lead to fewer hypoglycemic events than NPH without compromising glycemic control.

Insulin degludec versus insulin detemir, both in combination with insulin aspart, in the treatment of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (EXPECT): an open­label, multinational, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin degludec (degludec) is a second-generation basal insulin with an improved pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile compared with first-generation basal insulins, but there are few data regarding its use during pregnancy. In this non-inferiority trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of degludec with insulin detemir (detemir), both in combination with insulin aspart (aspart), in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This open-label, multinational, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial (EXPECT) was conducted at 56 sites (hospitals and medical centres) in 14 countries. Women aged at least 18 years with type 1 diabetes who were between gestational age 8 weeks (+0 days) and 13 weeks (+6 days) or planned to become pregnant were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive web response system, to degludec (100 U/mL) once daily or detemir (100 U/mL) once or twice daily, both with mealtime insulin aspart (100 U/mL), all via subcutaneous injection. Participants who were pregnant received the trial drug at randomisation, throughout pregnancy and until 28 days post-delivery (end of treatment). Participants not pregnant at randomisation initiated the trial drug before conception. The primary endpoint was the last planned HbA1c measurement before delivery (non-inferiority margin of 0·4% for degludec vs detemir). Secondary endpoints included efficacy, maternal safety, and pregnancy outcomes. The primary endpoint was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who were pregnant during the trial. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants who were pregnant during the trial and exposed to at least one dose of trial drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03377699, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2017, and Nov 8, 2019, from 296 women screened, 225 women were randomly assigned to degludec (n=111) or detemir (n=114). Mean HbA1c at pregnancy baseline was 6·6% (SD 0·6%; approximately 49 mmol/mol; SD 7 mmol/mol) in the degludec group and 6·5% (0·8%; approximately 48 mmol/mol; 9 mmol/mol) in the detemir group. Mean last planned HbA1c measurement before delivery was 6·2% (SE 0·07%; approximately 45 mmol/mol; SE 0·8 mmol/mol) in the degludec group and 6·3% (SE 0·07%; approximately 46 mmol/mol; SE 0·8 mmol/mol) in the detemir group (estimated treatment difference -0·11% [95% CI -0·31 to 0·08]; -1·2 mmol/mol [95% CI: -3·4 to 0·9]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001), confirming non-inferiority. Compared with detemir, no additional safety issues were observed with degludec. INTERPRETATION: In pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, degludec was found to be non-inferior to detemir. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Detemir improves diabetic regulation in poorly controlled diabetic dogs with concurrent diseases.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the use of detemir for treating diabetic dogs with comorbidities that were poorly controlled with intermediate-acting insulins. ANIMALS: 7 insulin-treated diabetic dogs. PROCEDURES: Retrospective pilot study. Dogs were treated with detemir for at least 3 months, and glycemia was assessed by the owners at home initially 2 to 4 times daily for 6 to 8 weeks and twice daily thereafter. Clinical evaluations occurred on days 7 to 14, day 30, and then every 60 to 90 days, and dosage adjustments of detemir occurred as needed to control glycemia. RESULTS: The mean, peak, nadir, morning, and evening preinsulin daily blood glucose concentrations were significantly lower after dosing with detemir for 1, 3, or 6 months and during the last month of treatment compared to the final month of treatment with intermediate-acting insulin. Intermediate-acting insulins resulted in significantly worse glycemic control than detemir in all 3 categories of control. The odds of a biochemical hypoglycemic measurement with detemir were not significantly different compared to intermediate-acting insulins. Clinical hypoglycemia did not occur following detemir treatment. When insulin was withheld because of low morning preinsulin blood glucose concentration < 6.7 mmol/L (≤ 120 mg/dL) and dogs were fed, mean blood glucose concentration was significantly higher 1 hour later. Glucose concentrations were also significantly higher 12 hours later on days when insulin was withheld in the morning or evening for either 1 or 12 hours. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Detemir is useful in diabetic dogs with other comorbidities and can be considered an alternative treatment in poorly controlled diabetic dogs.

Rate of Inpatient Hypoglycemia Following a 1:1 Dose Interchange Between Concentrated Insulin Glargine to Insulin Detemir.

BACKGROUND: Insulin remains a mainstay of treating hyperglycemia in an acute setting. Insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Toujeo, iGlar300) has a different pharmacokinetic profile than 100 units/mL basal insulins, such as insulin detemir (iDet100) and iGlar100. While conversion from iGlar300 to iGlar100 requires a 20% dose decrease, there is currently no recommended interchange from iGlar300 to iDet100. OBJECTIVE: Compare the incidence of hypoglycemia in patients who received a 1:1 unit interchange from home iGlar300 or iGlar100 to iDet100 while admitted. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate adults within a multi-site network admitted between May and December 2019. Patients were included if they received at least one dose of iDet100 following interchange from home iGlar300 or iGlar100. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoglycemic events following a 1:1 interchange of iGlar300 vs. iGlar100 to inpatient iDet100. Secondary outcomes include overall hypoglycemic events, time to hypoglycemia, and doses given before hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Of 615 patients, 394 received a 1:1 unit interchange to iDet100 (52 from iGlar300 and 342 from iGlar100). Incidence of hypoglycemic events was significantly higher in those with a 1:1 interchange from iGlar300 versus iGlar100 (36.5% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.007). Significant differences were observed in overall hypoglycemic events, time to hypoglycemia, and number of doses given before hypoglycemic event. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: A 1:1 unit interchange from iGlar300 to iDet100 led to a higher incidence of hypoglycemic events compared to those interchanged from iGlar100. Dose reduction should be considered when transitioning from home iGlar300 to iDet100 in the inpatient setting.

Comparison of two titration programmes for adding insulin detemir to oral antidiabetic drugs in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To explore the effect of active insulin titration versus usual titration on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). METHODS: In a 24-week, prospective and randomized study, 172 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to either active titration or usual titration. Efficacy and safety outcomes included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose, percentage of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol, and hypoglycaemic events. RESULTS: At Week 24, change in HbA1c was -1.08% ± 1.60% in the active titration group and -0.95% ± 1.34% in the usual titration group (P = 0.569). The percentages of individuals achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol were 29.4% and 16.1% in the active and usual titration groups, respectively (P = 0.037). There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that, with active titration, baseline HbA1c levels and postprandial glucose excursion were significantly associated with achieving HbA1c<53 mmol/mol. CONCLUSION: Addition of basal insulin using active titration for 24 weeks provided a higher rate of HbA1c target achievement without significant hypoglycaemia compared to usual titration in individuals with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

Insulinas análogas de ação prolongada comparadas à insulina NPH para tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 em adultos: revisão rápida / Long-acting basal insulin analogues compared to nph insulin for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: rapid review

Tecnologia: Insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH (protamina neutra de Hagedorn). Indicação: Tratamento de adultos com diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Pergunta: Há diferenças de efeito nos principais desfechos de eficácia e segurança entre insulinas análogas de liberação prolongada versus insulina NPH no tratamento de pacientes com DM2? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foi selecionada e incluída uma revisão sistemática. Conclusão: As insulinas análogas (glargina e detemir) não demonstraram superioridade nos desfechos de eficácia e segurança quando comparadas à insulina NPH, não demonstraram redução significativa em relação à mortalidade por todas as causas e complicações secundárias ao DM2. Quando comparadas à insulina NPH, foi observado redução na hipoglicemia confirmada e hipoglicemia noturna a favor das insulinas análogas e na hipoglicemia grave a favor da insulina detemir

Technology: Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin). Indication: Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Question: Are there effect differences in key efficacy and safety outcomes between long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin in the treatment of DM2 patients? Methods: Rapid review of evidence (overview) of systematic reviews, with a bibliographic survey carried out in the PUBMED database, using a structured search strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Results: A systematic review was selected and included. Conclusion: Analog insulins (glargine and detemir) did not demonstrate superiority in efficacy and safety outcomes when compared to NPH insulin, did not demonstrate a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and complications secondary to DM2. When compared to NPH insulin, a reduction in confirmed hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia in favor of analogue insulins and in severe hypoglycemia in favor of insulin detemir was observed

Alteração das Insulinas análogas de ação prolongada para o tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo I / Alteration of long-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of type I diabetes mellitus

INTRODUÇÃO: O diabetes mellitus tipo 1 (DM1) é um transtorno endócrino caracterizado por hiperglicemia devido à destruição de células beta, geralmente levando a deficiência absoluta de insulina. Trata-se de uma doença de grande relevância, principalmente porque o não tratamento ou o seu agravamento podem levar a desfechos graves como a morte e a complicações macro e microvasculares, oculares, renais e neurológicas. O tratamento do paciente acometido com DM1 consiste na reposição de insulina endógena através do uso de insulina de ação rápida ou ultrarrápida, associada a uma insulina de ação intermediária ou prolongada, além da monitorização da glicemia capilar pelo paciente e medidas de autocuidado dos pacientes. Como terapia medicamentosa, o SUS disponibiliza a insulina Regular, insulina NPH e insulinas análogas de ação rápida. Além das insulinas disponibilizadas pelo SUS, atualmente também se encontram disponíveis no mercado, as insulinas análogas de ação prolongada (glargina, detemir e degludeca), além de pré-misturas que contêm associações entre estas diversas opções. PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: O objetivo do presente relatório é verificar e atualizar as evidências científicas sobre a eficácia, segurança e recalcular o impacto orçamentário das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada (glargina, detemir e degludeca). EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: Dois novos estudos foram avaliados, no relatório original foram selecionadas sete revisões sistemáticas (RS) de risco de viés baixo a incerto, avaliadas pela ferramenta Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) e separadas por tipo de comparação. Insulina glargina vs NPH: foram incluídas quatro RS com metanálise, que demonstraram eficácia na redução dos níveis de HbA1c a favor da insulina glargina, variando entre 0,33 a 0,40%. Tricco et al. (2021), incluiu 65 estudos únicos com 14200 pacientes com diabetes tipo 1, as insulinas de ação prolongada se mostraram superiores para o controle da hipoglicemia noturna, superioridade na Redução hemoglobina glicada, glicemia de jejum, ganho de peso. Quanto aos episódios de hipoglicemia grave Dawoud et al. (2018) e Tricco et al. (2014) demonstraram que não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre as insulinas, no entanto Marra et al. (2016) apresentaram uma estimativa da diferença da média do número de episódios de hipoglicemia grave a favor da insulina glargina em -0,58. Insulina detemir vs NPH: foram incluídas duas RS nesta comparação, na qual ambas demonstraram que a insulina detemir foi mais eficaz na redução dos níveis de HbA1c em relação à insulina NPH, uma diferença de 0,16% e 0,26%. A insulina detemir (utilizada uma ou duas vezes por dia) foi associada a um risco menor de episódios de hipoglicemia grave, de 0,25 , comparada a insulina NPH (utilizada uma ou duas vezes por dia). Insulina degludeca vs NPH: apenas Dawoud et al. (2018) avaliaram a eficácia e segurança da insulina degludeca comparada à insulina NPH, demonstrando que não houve nenhuma diferença estatisticamente significativa entre as insulinas na redução dos níveis de HbA1c e nas taxas de episódios de hipoglicemia grave. Insulina glargina vs detemir: foram incluídas três RS nesta comparação, na qual todas demonstraram que não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre elas na redução dos níveis de HbA1c. Dawoud et al. (2018) não mostraram diferenças significativas ou clinicamente relevantes na taxa de hipoglicemia grave entre as insulinas glargina e detemir. Insulina glargina vs degludeca: foram incluídas três RS nesta comparação, na qual todas demonstraram que não houve diferença significante entre as insulinas na redução dos níveis de HbA1c. ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: A análise consistiu em uma atualização do impacto apresentado no Relatório de Recomendação da Conitec nº 440 de março de 2019, considerando o preço de aquisição da insulina NPH e as aquisições dos comparativos pelo BPS e Siasg. Foi considerada a dose diária definida estabelecida pela OMS para todas as tecnologias (40 UI). Os preços foram obtidos no Sistema Integrado de Administração de Serviços Gerais (SIASG). Foram feitos dois cenários populacionais, a partir de dados epidemiológicos e outro com dados de dispensação pelo SUS e pelo programa "Aqui Tem Farmácia Popular". Considerando o cenário epidemiológico estimado, o gasto previsto com incorporação de insulinas análogas de ação prolongada variou no primeiro ano entre cerca de R$ 195 mi e cerca de R$ 990 mi, de acordo com o análogo de insulina. Considerando o cenário epidemiológico estimado, o gasto previsto com incorporação de insulinas análogas de ação prolongada variou no primeiro ano entre cerca de R$ 7,4 mi e cerca de R$ 907 mi, de acordo com o análogo de insulina. O gasto total ao final de cinco anos variou entre cerca de R$ 1.7 bi a cerca de R$ 9,5 bi, a depender do análogo de insulina. O impacto orçamentário incremental estimado, em relação à insulina humana NPH, variou entre R$ 108 mi e R$ 7,8 bi (Tabela 15). MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram considerados estudos clínicos de fases 3 ou 4 inscritos no ClinicalTrials, que testaram ou estão testando os medicamentos resultantes da busca supracitada. Os medicamentos com registro para a indicação clínica há mais de dois anos na Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA), ou há mais de cinco anos na European Medicines Agency (EMA) ou na U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) não foram considerados. Os dados da situação regulatória das tecnologias foram consultados nos sítios eletrônicos das referidas agências sanitárias. No horizonte considerado nesta análise, não foram detectadas tecnologias para o tratamento do diabetes mellitus tipo I. CONSIDERAÇÕES: As insulinas análogas de ação prolongada demonstram benefício clínico modesto, sendo o seu efeito mais proeminente para o controle da hipoglicemia grave e noturna. Seu uso como regime basal de insulina para DM1 parece beneficiar mais os pacientes que apresentam episódios recorrentes de hipoglicemia. No entanto, há de se ponderar a fragilidade em avaliar os eventos de hipoglicemia, devido às divergências nas definições deste desfecho. Na comparação entre insulinas análogas de ação prolongada não houve um consenso entre os autores sobre qual seria mais eficaz e segura. Além disso, desfechos importantes no diabetes, como complicações diabéticas, presença de eventos adversos e medidas da variabilidade glicêmica, não foram relatados nos estudos incluídos. Evidência clínica sobre a efetividade da insulina glargina com dados brasileiros demonstrou que um pequeno número de pacientes obtiveram o controle glicêmico e não foi identificada correlação entre o tipo de insulinoterapia e a qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde do paciente com DM1. Após abertura de licitação, nenhuma empresa conseguiu ofertar com o valor aprovado para incorporação. A nova análise de impacto orçamentário demonstra que o montante de recursos envolvidos numa potencial incorporação apesar de registrar resultado financeiro adicional, teve considerável redução em relação ao relatório de 2019. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário presentes na 111ª Reunião Ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 04 de agosto de 2022, sem nenhuma declaração de conflito de interesse, deliberaram por unanimidade, encaminhar o tema para consulta pública com recomendação preliminar favorável à manutenção das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada com condicionante de custo de tratamento. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: As contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião, apresentaram 98% de concordância sobre a manutenção das insulinas. Destas 107 opiniões não continham informações complementares, 77% eram do sexo feminino, 47% entre 25 e 39 anos e 70% se autodeclaravam brancos. Ao reportar e sintetizar as opiniões, ficaram mais evidentes as falas de melhoria no controle da glicemia e comodidade para uso dos análogos de ação prolongada. Assim as contribuições recebidas na consulta pública sobre o relatório que avalia a proposta de à manutenção das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada com condicionante de custo de tratamento foram em sua maioria favoráveis a recomendação preliminar da Conitec, de incorporação. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Os membros do Plenário presentes na 114ª Reunião Ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 09 de novembro de 2022, deliberaram, por unanimidade, recomendar a não alteração da recomendação de incorporação das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada para o tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo I, mantidos os termos da Portaria SCTIE/MS nº 19, de 27 de março de 2019. Foi assinado o registro de deliberação Nº 780/2022. DECISÃO: Não alterar, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, a incorporação das insulinas análogas de ação prolongada para o tratamento de diabetes mellitus tipo I, mantidos os termos da Portaria SCTIE/MS nº 19, de 27 de março de 2019, conforme protocolo estabelecido pelo Ministério da Saúde, conforme a Portaria nº 167, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 228, seção 1, página 81, em 6 de dezembro de 2022.

Safety and efficacy of insulin detemir versus NPH in the treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in pregnant women with diabetes. METHODS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Google Scholar databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult women with singleton pregnancies, gestational or pregestational diabetes, and the need for insulin therapy. A systematic review and a meta-analysis (weighted data, random-effects model) were performed. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) (inverse variance method); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI (Mantel-Haenszel method). Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 index. RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes that showed significant results in favor of insulin detemir over NPH were maternal hypoglycemic events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86, p = 0.003; I2 = 0%) and gestational age at delivery (MD 0.48, 95% CI 0.16-0.81, p = 0.003; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin detemir was associated with less maternal hypoglycemic events and decreased risk for prematurity compared with NPH insulin. More research should be conducted to reach a safe conclusion about the optimal insulin regimen for women with diabetes in pregnancy.

Efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus glargine in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Performing an updated meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to 18 August 2021. A random-effects model was applied to pool data from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable. RESULTS: Nine studies compared insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and three studies in patients with type 1 diabetes. The pooled SMD of weight gain was -0.59 (95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P=0.01; I2=98%) in patients with type 2 diabetes. The pooled RR of severe hypoglycemia was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; P=0.002; I2=0%) in patients with type 1 diabetes. The effects of detemir and glargine on HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and overall hypoglycemia were not statistically different (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was found that there is no clinically considerable difference between the impacts of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in diabetic patients. The only statistically significant differences were less weight gain in type 2 diabetes and fewer episodes of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes with insulin detemir.

Interaction of esomeprazole with insulin detemir and human albumin: A potential cause of hypoglycemia.

Insulin detemir (IDt) is long-acting insulin whose protraction mechanism is based on a covalently attached fatty acid to an insulin molecule. Utilizing the high affinity of fatty acids towards human serum albumin (HA), the modified detemir molecule binds with good affinity to HA, which functions as a reservoir that leads to a slow and prolonged release of insulin. However, questions were raised over potential interactions between other drugs and IDt through competitive binding on the binding site(s) of HA. In a previous study, concomitant use of esomeprazole (Esom) and erythromycin resulted in severe hypoglycemia, and thus: the drugs including Esom were suggested as enhancers of IDt action through displacing it from its binding site on HA. To further study this possibility, studies utilizing different techniques including, semipermeable membrane dialysis, capillary electrophoresis, UV,NMR spectroscopy, and molecular docking were carried out. Results from various techniques supported the simultaneous binding of Esom along with IDt to HA (i.e., binding in two different sites without signs of competition between the two). Moreover, capillary electrophoresis suggested an increase in the binding affinity of Esom to HA in the presence of IDt (1.9 × 103 Vs 2.7 × 104M-1). Perhaps most interesting was the observation that Esom could bind directly to IDt which was evidenced by all the employed techniques. Direct binding of Esom to IDt, might explain the enhancement in insulin action associated with the concomitant use of Esom. Therefore, Esom might represent a leading insulin-sensitizing compound that might lead to more effective insulin enhancing and less unwanted effects.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Insulin Degludec Versus Other Long-acting Basal Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of insulin degludec with those of other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (T1D or T2D). METHODS: Those randomized controlled trials comparing insulin degludec with other long-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D published on or before August 21, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The efficacy end points were the changes from baseline in hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The tolerability end point was the prevalence of hypoglycemia confirmed throughout the treatment period. FINDINGS: Data from a total of 20 trials (19,048 patients) were included. The differences in the reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin between insulin degludec and other long-acting basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) used for the treatment of patients with T1D or T2D were not significant. However, the reduction in FPG was greater with insulin degludec (-0.370 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.473 to -0.267 mmol/L; P ≤ 0.001). Throughout the treatment periods of all of the available trials, the estimated rate ratios of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were significantly decreased with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine or insulin detemir in patients with T1D or T2D; the differences in the risks for severe hypoglycemia were not significant. IMPLICATIONS: Compared with other long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir), insulin degludec was associated with a significantly decreased FPG, with lower prevalences of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Optimization of pig models for translation of subcutaneous pharmacokinetics of therapeutic proteins: Liraglutide, insulin aspart and insulin detemir.

Prediction of human pharmacokinetics (PK) from data obtained in animal studies is essential in drug development. Here, we present a thorough examination of how to achieve good pharmacokinetic data from the pig model for translational purposes by using single-species allometric scaling for selected therapeutic proteins: liraglutide, insulin aspart and insulin detemir. The predictions were based on non-compartmental analysis of intravenous and subcutaneous PK data obtained from two injection regions (neck, thigh) in two pig breeds, domestic pig and Göttingen Minipig, that were compared with PK parameters reported in humans. The effects of pig breed, injection site and injection depth (insulin aspart only) on the PK of these proteins were also assessed. Results show that the prediction error for human PK was within two-fold for most PK parameters in both pig breeds. Furthermore, pig breed significantly influenced the plasma half-life and mean absorption time (MAT), both being longer in Göttingen Minipigs compared to domestic pigs (P <0.01). In both breeds, thigh vs neck dosing was associated with a higher dose-normalized maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve as well as shorter MAT and plasma half-life (P <0.01). Finally, more superficial injections resulted in faster absorption, higher Cmax/dose and bioavailability of insulin aspart (P <0.05, 3.0 vs 5.0 mm injection depth). In conclusion, pig breed and injection region affected the PK of liraglutide, insulin aspart and insulin detemir and reliable predictions of human PK were demonstrated when applying single-species allometric scaling with the pig as a pre-clinical animal model.

Comparative efficacy and safety of basal insulins: A review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To provide an update on the usefulness of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We conducted a literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Scopus, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, and Springer Online Archives Collection until June 2021. RESULTS: All basal insulins are similar in efficacy, with only small differences among them in terms of the risk of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: For type 2 diabetes mellitus, all basal insulins have a similar efficacy, with some advantage of Glar-300 and Deg-100 in reducing the risk of hypoglycemia compared to Glar-100.

Risk of Major Congenital Malformations or Perinatal or Neonatal Death With Insulin Detemir Versus Other Basal Insulins in Pregnant Women With Preexisting Diabetes: The Real-World EVOLVE Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of severe adverse pregnancy complications in women with preexisting diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Multinational, prospective cohort study to assess the prevalence of newborns free from major congenital malformations or perinatal or neonatal death (primary end point) following treatment with insulin detemir (detemir) versus other basal insulins. RESULTS: Of 1,457 women included, 727 received detemir and 730 received other basal insulins. The prevalence of newborns free from major congenital malformations or perinatal or neonatal death was similar between detemir (97.0%) and other basal insulins (95.5%) (crude risk difference 0.015 [95% CI -0.01, 0.04]; adjusted risk difference -0.003 [95% CI -0.03, 0.03]). The crude prevalence of one or more congenital malformations (major plus minor) was 9.4% vs. 12.6%, with a similar risk difference before (-0.032 [95% CI -0.064, 0.000]) and after (-0.036 [95% CI -0.081, 0.009]) adjustment for confounders. Crude data showed lower maternal HbA1c during the first trimester (6.5% vs. 6.7% [48 vs. 50 mmol/mol]; estimated mean difference -0.181 [95% CI -0.300, -0.062]) and the second trimester (6.1% vs. 6.3% [43 vs. 45 mmol/mol]; -0.139 [95% CI -0.232, -0.046]) and a lower prevalence of major hypoglycemia (6.0% vs. 9.0%; risk difference -0.030 [95% CI -0.058, -0.002]), preeclampsia (6.4% vs. 10.0%; -0.036 [95% CI -0.064, -0.007]), and stillbirth (0.4% vs. 1.8%; -0.013 [95% CI -0.024, -0.002]) with detemir compared with other basal insulins. However, differences were not significant postadjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin detemir was associated with a similar risk to other basal insulins of major congenital malformations, perinatal or neonatal death, hypoglycemia, preeclampsia, and stillbirth.