Glycated haemoglobin is currently used for diagnosis and follow-up of diabetes mellitus. However, it has important limitations; as it only reflects the average glycaemia over the last 3 months, it does not allow the identification of crucial events, such as episodes of hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Strict control of hyperglycaemia can result in severe hypoglycaemia that can be life threatening and can have important sequelae. Recently, the concept of glycaemic variability has been developed to provide information about the magnitude of glycaemic excursions and the duration of these fluctuations. This new approach has the potential to improve outcomes, decrease the risk of hypoglycaemia, and decrease cardiovascular risk. This review describes the most commonly prescribed non-insulin anti-diabetic drugs for diabetes management, their mechanism of action, and the existing evidence about their effectiveness in improving glycaemic variability and diabetes control.

To compare efficacy and safety of degludec 100 IU/mL (Deg-100) and glargine 300 IU/mL (Gla-300) in adults with type 1 diabetes.

Open-label, single-center, randomized, parallel-group, 24-week trial in adults with type 1 diabetes, on basal-bolus insulin therapy, HbA1c ≤ 10%, using self-monitoring blood glucose. Participants were randomized 1:1 to a basal-bolus insulin regimen with Deg-100 (N = 129) or Gla-300 (N = 131). Primary efficacy endpoint: mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week-24. Main safety outcome: incidence rate of hypoglycemia during the study. Quality of life (DQOL) and satisfaction with diabetes treatment (DTSQ) were assessed.

At week 24, after adjusting for baseline HbA1c, the decrease in HbA1c did not differ between groups: Deg-100 (-0.07 ± 0.7%) and Gla-300 (-0.16 ± 0.77%) (P = 0.320). There were no significant differences between groups in HbA1c, nocturnal hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, DQOL, or DTSQ scores. The incidence rates of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L (Deg-100: 115.24 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 99.01 events/person-year, p < 0.001); and < 3.0 mmol/L (Deg-100: 41.17 events/person-year vs Gla-300: 34.29 events/person-year, p < 0.001) were different between groups.

Deg-100 and Gla-300 have similar metabolic efficacy, incidence ratio of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia, DQOL and DTSQ scores. Differences in the incidence rate of hypoglycemia < 3.9 mmol/L and < 3.0 mmol/L should be confirmed.

Insulin is one of the commonly prescribed glucose lowering agents in diabetes. Hypoglycemia is the most common complication, and severe hypoglycemia is the most serious complication of insulin therapy. Almost half of all severe hypoglycemia episodes (HEs) occur at night. However, patients are often unaware of their nocturnal hypoglycaemia (NH) risk. Additionally, both healthcare professionals and patients find it difficult to manage NH. The purpose of this expert group meeting is to improve NH awareness and provide guidance for the physicians to recognize and manage NH.

The panel of experts in an e-board deliberated extensively upon the available literature and guidelines on hypoglycemia and NH discussed the consensus on definition, detection, reporting, monitoring, treatment, and optimization of therapy in NH.

& Conclusion: Though there are many guidelines on the management of HEs in patients with diabetes, very few touch the topic of NH. This scientific advisory on management of NH in insulin treated patients with diabetes is formulated to address this gap in understanding regarding management of NH. The experts provide recommendations for the nocturnal window, defining NH based on blood glucose values, recognition, prevention and management of NH.

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the clinical efficacy of different types of long-acting insulin therapies-glargine U100, glargine U300, degludec, and insulin degludec/insulin aspart-among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes after insulin use was initiated in an outpatient setting. The study consisted of 822 insulin-naïve patients in Japan who started using long-acting insulin for treatment of type 2 diabetes and continued for over 12 months. In addition, the impact of insulin type on insulin withdrawal was investigated by dividing the participants into two groups: those who achieved insulin withdrawal and those who did not, during the 12-month observation period based on a Cox proportional hazards model. As a result, HbA1c was decreased, and BMI was increased in all participants regardless of the insulin type used. A total of 185 participants succeeded in insulin withdrawal. After adjustment was made for several confounders, the positive determinant factors for withdrawal were short duration of diabetes and the choice of IDegAsp when compared with Gla100; the negative determinant factor was use of insulin secretagogues at the start of the study. In conclusion, all long-acting insulins were a powerful tool for treatment of type 2 diabetes, and patients with short duration of diabetes and/or no usage of insulin secretagogues resulted in favorable outcomes in terms of insulin withdrawal within a year in an outpatient setting. In addition, insulin degludec/insulin aspart was found to possibly be a better choice for treatment when it was compared with glargine U100 among the four types of insulin.

The patient was 82-year-old man with type 1 diabetes mellitus. He had been using insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glulisine (IGlu) for treatment. He was admitted to our hospital due to diabetic ketoacidosis. As he started eating after recovery, we restarted intensive insulin therapy for glycemic control. Although he had eaten almost whole meals, his fasting blood glucose was extremely low, and the existence of nocturnal hypoglycemia was apparent. We reduced the dose and changed the injection time (evening→morning) of IDeg. We also stopped the evening IGlu injection; however, his nocturnal hypoglycemia did not improve. We decided to switch IDeg to insulin glargine U300 and to attach an intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitor (isCGM). His nocturnal hypoglycemia improved three days later. Since he had chronic heart failure and premature ventricular contractions, we used a Holter electrocardiogram to investigate the difference in arrythmia during hypoglycemia and non-hypoglycemia. As a result, the number of premature ventricular contractions was apparently high during hypoglycemia. In the present case, which involved an elderly patient with type 1 diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure and nocturnal hypoglycemia, switching IDeg to insulin glargine U300 improved nocturnal hypoglycemia. IDeg differs from insulin glargine U300 in that it has a fatty acid side chain, which leads IDeg to combine with serum albumin. We thought that the increased level of free fatty acid due to hypoglycemia was competing against albumin combined IDeg, which increased free IDeg, and as a result, encouraged hypoglycemia.

Currently, glycemic variability has more deleterious effects than sustained hyperglycemia and is closely associated with acute and chronic complications of diabetes. Reducing glycemic excursion is becoming another vital goal of glycemic control in clinical practice. This study aimed to determine whether insulin degludec (IDeg) or insulin glargine (IGla) was more beneficial for reducing glycemic fluctuations.

This research was constructed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched eight databases and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to 30 November 2021. All randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of glucose variability between IDeg and IGla in diabetic patients were included.

Fourteen trials with 8,683 participants were included. In patients with T1DM, IDeg was associated with a lower mean (MD: -16.25, 95% CI -29.02 to -3.07, P = 0.01) and standard deviation (P = 0.03) compared to IGla in fasting blood glucose (FBG); in people with T2DM, IDeg was related to a lower mean of FBG versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml (IGla100) (P <0.001) and had a more extended time in the range (TIR) than IGla100 (SMD: 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.27, P = 0.02) but not longer than insulin glargine 300 U/ml (IGla300). Moreover, IDeg had a lower coefficient of variation of FBG than IGla (P = 0.0254). For other indicators of glycemic variability, namely, standard deviation of blood glucose for 24 h, the mean of 24-h blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion, the coefficient of variation for 24 h, the mean of daily differences, area under the glucose curve, and M-value, no significant differences were identified between IDeg and IGla, regardless of T1DM or T2DM.

Based on the current studies, there was comparable efficacy between IDeg and IGla from multiple aspects of glycemic variability, regardless of T1DM or T2DM. However, IDeg may be superior to IGla in reducing FBG variability in T1DM and T2DM. Nonetheless, due to the limitations of the original studies, it is still unclear whether IDeg is superior to both IGla100 and IGla300. In T2DM, IDeg had more extended TIR than IGla100 but not longer than IGla300. Additionally, more well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing IDeg with IGla300 for different indicators of glycemic variability are still warranted.

PROSPERO, CRD42021283203.

This study aims at evaluating glycemic control during Basalin or Lantus administration in adults with controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus using continuous glucose monitoring system (CGM).

47 patients with well-controlled T2DM using both Basalin and oral hypoglycemic drugs were recruited. CGM were applied from day 1 to day 3 with the unchanged dose of Basalin and then removed from day 4. A washout was performed with Lantus at the same dose as Basalin from day 4 to day 10. Then patients were continued to install the CGM under Lantus administration from day 11 to day 13. Variables of CGM, such as the area under the curve (AUC) for both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, 24h mean blood glucose (24h MBG), 24h standard deviation of blood glucose (24h SDBG), 24h mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (24h MAGE), PT (percentage of time), and time in range (TIR), were calculated and compared between Basalin group and Lantus group.

The group of Lantus showed lower 24h MBG (p<0.01), 24h MAGE (p<0.05), and lower 24h SDBG (p<0.01) than the Basalin group. Lantus-treated patients had a lower PT and AUC when the cut-off point for blood glucose was 10 mmol/L (p<0.05) and 13.9 mmol/L (p<0.05), respectively. In this study, no patient developed symptomatic hypoglycemia, few hypoglycemia was observed and there was no difference of hypoglycemia between the two groups.

In patients with well-controlled T2DM who were treated with insulin glargine, Lantus group showed lower MBG, GV, and lower PT (BG > 10.0 mmol/L, BG > 13.9 mmol/L) than Basalin group. In summary, for T2DM population with HbA1c ≤ 7%, Lantus may be a better choice compared with Basalin.

Background Global variation in susceptibility to diabetes, insulin sensitivity, and regimen intensity poses a challenge for clinicians regarding the optimal choice of insulin therapy. The current study was carried out to see the relative safety and efficacy of currently available long-acting insulins among the type 2 diabetic Asian population. Methods A systematic literature search was done using various search engines (PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase) and included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English before December 2019. Further, a manual search was performed by screening the reference list of the identified articles. Results We included four RCTs with 534 participants (349 in the insulin degludec group and 185 in the insulin glargine group) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Results show that both insulin glargine and degludec are equally efficacious in reducing fasting blood glucose (mean difference is -4.45, confidence interval -13.32- 4.43, I²=67%) and HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) (mean difference is 0.12, confidence interval -0.12-0.35, I²=0%). However, insulin glargine was associated with lower risks of hypoglycemia (risk ratio = 0.9684, confidence interval- 0.8003- 1.1717, I²=30%). Conclusion Insulin glargine and degludec are comparable in achieving glycemic control with fewer hypoglycemic episodes in the insulin glargine-treated group.

This study aimed to examine retrospectively the clinical backgrounds of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who successfully withdrew from insulin use after being started on basal insulin in an outpatient setting.

The study population comprised 376 insulin-naïve patients who were started on basal insulin (glargine U100, glargine U300, or degludec) for the management of T2D and followed the treatment regimen for at least 6 months in 13 institutions in Japan. The clinical courses of the study participants were compared based on outpatient clinic medical records for the three different types of basal insulin prescribed by categorizing the participants into two groups retrospectively: those who successfully withdrew from insulin therapy and those who did not, during a 6-month observation period. The clinical determinants for insulin withdrawal were assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model.

Glycated hemoglobin was improved in all participants regardless of basal insulin type. Of the 376 study participants, 61 successfully withdrew from basal insulin therapy. After adjustment was made for several confounders, the positive determinant factors for successful withdrawal of insulin were short duration of diabetes and high body mass index at the start of study, and the negative determinant factor was use of insulin secretagogues at the start. The types of basal insulin used by the study participants were not significant determinants of successful insulin withdrawal in this study.

Use of basal insulin is a powerful option for the treatment of T2D. In patients with high BMI and/or short duration of diabetes, short-term insulin therapy is a promising strategy for the treatment of T2D before the initiation of insulin secretagogues, since such patients have the potential to successfully withdraw from basal insulin use even in an outpatient setting.

Diabetes mellitus is a global health concern associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Inadequate control of diabetes leads to chronic complications and higher mortality rates, which emphasizes the importance of achieving glycemic targets. Although glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is the gold standard for measuring glycemic control, it has several limitations. Therefore, in recent years, along with the emergence of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology, glycemic control modalities have moved beyond HbA1c. They encompass modern glucometrics, such as glycemic variability (GV) and time-in-range (TIR). The key advantage of these newer metrics over HbA1c is that they allow personalized diabetes management with person-centric glycemic control. Basal insulin analogues, especially second-generation basal insulins with properties such as longer duration of action and low risk of hypoglycemia, have demonstrated clinical benefits by reducing GV and improving TIR. Therefore, for more effective and accurate diabetes management, the development of an integrated approach with second-generation basal insulin and glucometrics involving GV and TIR is the need of the hour. With this objective, a multinational group of endocrinologists and diabetologists reviewed the existing recommendations on TIR, provided their clinical insights into the individualization of TIR targets, and elucidated on the role of the second-generation basal insulin analogues in addressing TIR.

Many people with insulin-treated diabetes continue to experience inadequate glycemic control and a high incidence of hypoglycemic events, despite improvements in therapeutic strategies. While glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) is currently recognized as the gold-standard for assessing glycemic control, the measure reflects mean blood glucose levels over a period of time, does not inform on acute glycemic deviations, and can be unreliable in certain populations. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) facilitates the acquisition of blood glucose data around the clock and, importantly, predicts and/or captures acute hyper- and hypoglycemic episodes. In light of the recent publication of the Time in Range (TIR) International Consensus Group report on key CGM metrics, we performed a review of current CGM evidence for second-generation basal insulins in both people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The identified studies highlight the varied CGM-related metrics used to assess basal insulins, which complicate comparisons. Furthermore, all studies had small sample sizes and typically were of short duration, which may account for the lack of statistically significant between-treatment differences observed. Differences were seen in the titration approaches used and the settings in which participants were observed. These results highlight the need for further studies of second-generation basal insulin analogs that are designed to capture the standard metrics proposed by the TIR consensus group, with additional consideration given to sample size and study duration.

To compare the effects of insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine U300 (IGlarU300) on glycaemic stability in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

In this multicentre, crossover trial, 46 individuals with type 1 diabetes and essentially undetectable circulating C-peptide were randomly assigned to either the IDeg-first/IGlarU300-second group or the IGlarU300-first/IDeg-second group, and were treated with the respective basal insulins for 4-week periods. Data were collected in the last week of each treatment period. The primary aim was to examine the potential non-inferiority of IDeg relative to IGlarU300 with regard to day-to-day variability, as evaluated by the standard deviation (SD) of fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels. Intra-day glycaemic variability and other variables were also determined by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

The SD of FBG for IDeg was non-inferior to that for IGlarU300. The mean of FBG, coefficient of variation of FBG, and various glycaemic variability indexes determined by CGM did not differ between the two insulins. Whereas the administered doses of the insulins also did not differ, the mean glycaemic value was lower for IDeg than IGlarU300; the time above the target range (>180 mg/dL [10.0 mmol/L]) and the time below the target range (<70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]) were shorter and longer, respectively, for IDeg than IGlarU300.

Our data suggest that IDeg and IGlarU300 have comparable glucose-stabilizing effects in individuals with type 1 diabetes. However, the glucose-lowering effect of IDeg may be greater than that of IGlarU300 when titrated with a unit-based protocol.

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Suboptimal glycaemic control among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is known to lead to long-term micro- and macrovascular complications and, unfortunately, it is still prevalent even in the most affluent societies. Although glycated haemoglobin monitoring is considered to be the gold standard for assessing glycaemic control, such monitoring is unable to reliably measure acute glycaemic excursions. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glucose control and reduce the incidence of hypoglycaemia, and also allow a more complete assessment of overall glycaemic control and hyper- and hypoglycaemic excursions. The use of CGM has led to time-in-range, which is the time that a patient is within the glycaemic range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, to be adopted as a treatment target. To date, only limited data comparing the second-generation insulins glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in people with T1D are available, and there is no CGM literature on comparisons of the use of CGM results to assess primary, secondary and tertiary endpoints. The aim of the InRange study was to address this unmet need.

InRange is a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week, open-label, phase 4, comparative study. Adults with T1D will be randomised to receive once-daily Gla-300 or IDeg-100 by subcutaneous injection in the morning. Following an 8-week titration period, CGM data will be collected over 20 consecutive days.

The primary objective is to demonstrate that Gla-300 is noninferior to IDeg-100 in terms of glycaemic control [time-in-range ≥ 70 to ≤ 180 mg/dL (≥ 3.9 to ≤ 10 mmol/L)] and variability, as assessed using CGM, in adults with T1D. The results are expected to help confirm the utility of CGM in clinical practice in this population and provide insight into its application as an outcome measure in clinical practice.

NCT04075513.

The aim is to devise a new short-term intensive insulin therapy (N-SIIT) based on the concept of "treat to target" to avoid hypoglycaemia and was applied it to various diabetic state. We determined dosage of 1 basal and 3 bolus "treat" insulin based on "target" blood glucose level and changed each insulin dose by small units (2 units) every day for 2 weeks. We evaluated the effects of N-SIIT in 74 subjects with type 2 diabetes (male 45, female 29, 64.9 ± 16.6 years old, HbA1c 10.4 ± 2.6%). Glargine U300 ("treat") and morning blood glucose level ("target") was significantly correlated with increasing insulin dose and decreasing blood glucose level in day 1-7, indicating that insulin amount was determined by target blood glucose level and lowered next target blood glucose level. Remission rates were 67.3% (Hypoglycaemia rate 5.6 %) in N-SIIT and 47.3% (Hypoglycaemia rate 38.1%) in conventional SIIT. Required amount of insulin would be automatically determined, depending on each patient pathophysiology and life style. This method is pretty simple, flexible and cheap, and provides information about the dynamic pathophysiological alteration of insulin resistance and glucotoxicity from the profile of blood glucose levels and insulin shot.

To examine the efficacy and safety of once-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) or once-daily second-generation basal insulin analogs (insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 units/mL) in insulin-naïve Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice. A 12-week multicenter, open-label, randomized, pilot study was performed in 52 subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 26) or basal insulin (n = 26). The primary endpoint was percent change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12. Furthermore, it was analyzed post hoc in subgroups stratified by baseline HbA1c. During a follow-up period, percent change in HbA1c was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.161). Daily insulin doses and frequency of overall hypoglycemia were also similar in the two groups. In post hoc analyses, once-daily basal insulin was more effective than IDegAsp in subjects with HbA1c more than or equal to 8.5% (p < 0.05); however, in subjects with HbA1c less than 8.5%, once-daily IDegAsp showed a significant improvement in percent change in HbA1c at week 12, compared with basal insulin (p < 0.01). Although there was no apparent difference in the HbA1c-lowering effects between two groups, when compared in subjects with HbA1c less than 8.5%, once-daily IDegAsp showed a significant effect in comparison with once-daily basal insulin. These findings suggest that the baseline HbA1c level might provide the important information for choosing IDegAsp or basal insulin in patients insufficiently controlled with OADs. This trial was registered with UMIN (no. UMIN000035431).

The recent introduction of the second-generation long-acting analogue insulins degludec and insulin glargine U300 have increased the choice of basal insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of these insulins result in a flatter profile that lasts over 24 h and provides an increased window of administration of 6 h once daily. Large-scale multicentre randomised clinical trial programmes (BEGIN for degludec U100 and U200 and EDITION for glargine U300) evaluating these insulin therapies against glargine U100 have demonstrated that they are either non-inferior or superior for glycaemic efficacy and safety, but less likely to result in severe or nocturnal hypoglycaemia than glargine U100. The disposable pen devices for these insulins have been designed with patient satisfaction and convenience in mind. No concerns have arisen with adverse events with insulin analogues or cardiovascular safety from the ORIGIN and DEVOTE trials. As they demonstrate equivalent glycaemic efficacy to other basal insulins, they should be considered more in selected patient groups including those with recurrent or increased risk of hypoglycaemia, especially severe or nocturnal episodes, in the elderly or those living alone, and in patients with multiple co-morbidities such as cardiovascular or renal disease.

The treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is often complicated by factors such as patient co-morbidities, complex drug-drug interactions, and management of adverse events. In addition, some of these factors are highly dependent on the nature of the treatment regimen and the molecular and physical properties of the drugs being used to treat patients with this disease. This calls for a better understanding of how the properties of individual drugs affect the overall outcome for patients with diabetes. Clinical pharmacology studies to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics of new diabetes drugs play an important role in advancing our understanding of the interactions between a drug and the human body. Specific PK and PD techniques such as the glucose clamp test can be applied to assess the properties of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes. Basal insulin analogs are a common treatment option for the maintenance of glycemic control in patients with T2D. These drugs work by mimicking endogenous insulin secretion within the body and provide stable and prolonged insulin action to achieve optimal glucose levels. Insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec (IDeg) 100 U/mL and 200 U/mL represent a new generation of longer-acting basal insulins. These drugs demonstrate improved PK and PD properties compared with previous basal insulins, allowing them to more closely mimic physiological basal insulin secretion. Here we review the methods used to evaluate the PK and PD profiles of Gla-300 and IDeg and describe studies that have investigated the PK/PD properties of these drugs in type 1 diabetes. The aim of this review is to inform primary care physicians of the value and limitations of data from clinical pharmacology studies when prescribing these agents for the management of T2D.