Rates Of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Research Articles

Burden and Coping Strategies of Hypoglycemia in People with Diabetes.

Hypoglycemia is a limiting adverse effect of glucose-lowering medications and particularly insulin replacement therapy. This review provides insights into the burden of hypoglycemia in the management of diabetes and outlines strategies available to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and improve patients' well-being. People with type 1 diabetes are primarily affected by hypoglycemic episodes which are associated with direct physical harms like injuries and cardiac events as well as indirect psychosocial consequences including constant anxiety, absenteeism, increased healthcare costs and overall poorer quality of life. These complications are more prominent amongst individuals with hypoglycemia unawareness or overnight hypoglycemia and could even extend to caregivers such as parents of children with diabetes. Patients experiencing frequent or severe hypoglycemic events might also develop a pathological fear of hypoglycemia and adopt aberrant behaviors intending to maintain higher blood glucose levels. Modern pharmaceutical options with a safer profile in terms of hypoglycemia are available including novel basal insulins with lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia along with ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs with a shorter duration of action that might avert late post-meal hypoglycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with low glucose suspend technology can also prevent hypoglycemia, although concerns about cost and patient satisfaction remain. Advancements in insulin therapy and technological modalities should be coupled with ongoing education and support for patients to become co-managers of their disease and reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

Frequency of hypoglycaemia with basal insulin treatments in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens in treat-to-target trials: A narrative review.

To summarise, in a narrative review, published data on hypoglycaemia occurrence with basal insulin therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin regimens in treat-to-target randomised controlled trials. Data were included from 21 eligible trials, which mainly used self-measured blood glucose or plasma glucose to detect hypoglycaemia. All-day self-measured blood glucose or plasma glucose level 2 (glucose threshold of 3.1 or 3.0 mmol/L) and level 3 (severe, requiring assistance) hypoglycaemic events were reported, respectively, by a range of 69.0%-97.5% and 0%-13.4% adults when receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy, with rates of 10.6-68.1 and 0.0-0.4 events per patient-year of exposure, respectively. Hypoglycaemia rates measured using continuous glucose monitoring (three studies) were numerically, yet consistently, higher than with either other method, except when limiting to symptomatic events. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rates were generally less than 30% of the equivalent all-day rates. Differences across the studies in design (e.g., titration targets) and participant characteristics hindered comparison of hypoglycaemia rates by insulin formulation. Consequently, few trends were identified by insulin formulation, study methodology or individuals' characteristics, suggesting that further research is required to identify treatment strategies that facilitate development of individualised recommendations to lower hypoglycaemia risk. These findings are useful to understand hypoglycaemia risk with available basal insulin therapies when used in a multiple daily injection regimen, as well as to provide context for the results of ongoing and future clinical trials, including those for two once-weekly basal insulins, insulin icodec and basal insulin Fc.

Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ultra-long-acting insulin analogs [insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin glargine 300 units/mL (IGla-300)] offer a longer duration of action with less risk of hypoglycemia compared to other long-acting insulins. However, data about the comparative efficacy and safety are inconsistent. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 7 October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of IDeg (100 or 200 units/mL) and IGla-300 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were included. Three review authors independently selected trials, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data, and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcomes were the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and any hypoglycemia; the secondary outcomes were the change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia. Four open-label RCTs were included (2727 participants), 3 parallel and 1 cross-over. Overall, the risk of bias assessment yielded some concern or high risk. There was a comparable change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment, a mean difference of 0.07% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 - 0.19; p = 0.29; 3 trials; 2652 patients; very low-certainty evidence), and a comparable rate of any hypoglycemia, rate ratio 1.02 (95% CI 0.8 - 1.3; p = 0.87; 3 trials; 2881 patients; very low-certainty evidence). IDeg resulted in more reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300, mean difference of 10.27 mg/dL (95% CI 7.25 - 13.29; p < 0.001; 3 trials; 2668 patients; low-certainty evidence). Similar rates of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia were observed, rate ratio of 1.13 (95% CI 0.72 - 1.78; p = 0.54; 3 trials; 2668 patients; very low-certainty evidence) and 1.4 (95% CI 0.41 - 4.73; p = 0.59; 2 trials; 1952 patients; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. There is no evidence of a difference between IDeg and IGla-300 in the mean change in HbA1c and the risk of anytime, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia. IDeg appeared to cause a higher reduction in FPG compared to IGla-300. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of trials included and their high risk of bias. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022364891, identifier CRD42022364891.

251-OR: The Impact of Identifying Sleep with a Fitbit on Calculated Rates of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia—The Hypo-Metrics Study

Consensus defines nocturnal hypoglycemia as occurring between 00:00 and 06:00 hrs. However, this may introduce bias, as for many, these hours only partially match real sleeping hours. Therefore, we compared rates of hypoglycemia while asleep (defined by Fitbit Charge 4) to rates of conventionally-defined nocturnal hypoglycemia. Hypo-METRICS study participants wore a Fitbit charge 4 and blinded FreeStyle Libre glucose monitor for up to 70 days. Every hypoglycemia episode (≤70mg/dL or ≤54mg/dL for ≥15 min) was classified as ‘asleep’ or ‘awake’ based on Fitbit sleep intervals and ‘nocturnal’ (00:00-06:00 hrs) or ‘day-time’. We compared weekly sensor-detected hypoglycemia (SDH) rates whilst asleep to nocturnal SDH rates using a paired sample Wilcoxon test. We included 542 participants (269 with type 1 diabetes, median (IQR) age 56 (44-66) years, HbA1c 7.3%(6.7-7.9), with 69 (65-70) nights with sleep data/participant). Sleep duration was 6.1 (5.2-6.8) hours. Median weekly rates of SDH while asleep were higher than rates of nocturnal SDH both ≤70mg/dL (1.3 (0.6-2.5) vs 0.9 (0.4-1.8), p&amp;lt;0.001) and ≤54mg/dL (0.4 (0.2-0.9) vs 0.3 (0.1-0.7), p&amp;lt;0.001). Stratifying by type of diabetes did not change the direction or magnitude of the differences in SDH rates. Using clock time to estimate nocturnal hypoglycemia underestimates hypoglycemia whilst asleep by up to a third. Using activity trackers such as Fitbit to identify sleep offers a novel way to estimate hypoglycemia whilst asleep to better reflect lived experience of nocturnal hypoglycemia. Disclosure G.Martine-edith: Other Relationship; Novo Nordisk A/S. R.J.Mccrimmon: Advisory Panel; Sanofi, Speaker's Bureau; Novo Nordisk A/S. E.Renard: Consultant; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc., AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, MannKind Corporation, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Roche Diabetes Care. S.R.Heller: Advisory Panel; Zealand Pharma A/S, Zucara Therapeutics, Other Relationship; Eli Lilly and Company, Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Speaker's Bureau; Novo Nordisk, Medtronic. M.Evans: Advisory Panel; Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, Dexcom, Inc., Other Relationship; Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Abbott Diabetes, Speaker's Bureau; Eli Lilly and Company. J.K.Mader: Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk A/S, Abbott Diabetes, Roche Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Medtronic, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Pharmasense, embecta, Research Support; A. Menarini Diagnostics, Abbott Diabetes, Roche Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Inc., Profusa, Inc., Speaker's Bureau; Novo Nordisk A/S, A. Menarini Diagnostics, Abbott Diabetes, Roche Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim Inc., Becton, Dickinson and Company, Ypsomed AG, Viatris Inc., Servier Laboratories, Medtrust, Stock/Shareholder; Decide Clinical Software GmbH. S.A.Amiel: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Other Relationship; Sanofi, Novo Nordisk. P.Choudhary: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, Inc., MannKind Corporation, Insulet Corporation, Research Support; Abbott Diabetes, Speaker's Bureau; Sanofi, Lilly. Hypo-resolve consortium: n/a. P.Divilly: None. N.Zaremba: None. U.Soeholm: Employee; Novo Nordisk A/S. A.Kingsnorth: None. Z.Mahmoudi: Employee; Novo Nordisk. M.Gomes: Employee; Novo Nordisk A/S. B.E.De galan: Research Support; Novo Nordisk. U.Pedersen-bjergaard: Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. Funding Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (777460)

Real-World Effects of Second-Generation Versus Earlier Intermediate/Basal Insulin Analogues on Rates of Hypoglycemia in Adults with Type 1 and 2 Diabetes (iNPHORM, US).

Second-generation basal insulin analogues have been shown to reduce hypoglycemia in several trials and observational studies of select populations; however, it remains unclear whether these results persist in real-world settings. Using self-reported hypoglycemia events, we assessed whether second-generation basal insulin analogues reduce rates of hypoglycemia events (non-severe/severe; overall/daytime/nocturnal) compared to earlier intermediate/basal insulin analogues among people with insulin-treated type 1 or 2 diabetes. We used prospectively collected data from the Investigating Novel Predictions of Hypoglycemia Occurrence Using Real-World Models (iNPHORM) panel survey. This US-wide, 1-year internet-based survey assessed hypoglycemia experiences and related sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of people with diabetes (February 2020-March 2021). We estimated population-average rate ratios for hypoglycemia comparing second-generation to earlier intermediate/basal insulin analogues using negative binomial regression, adjusting for confounders. Within-person variability of repeated observations was addressed with generalized estimating equations. Among iNPHORM participants with complete data, N = 413 used an intermediate/basal insulin analogue for ≥ 1month during follow-up. After adjusting for baseline and time-updated confounders, average second-generation basal insulin analogue users experienced a 19% (95% CI 3-32%, p = 0.02) lower rate of overall non-severe hypoglycemia and 43% (95% CI 26-56%, p < 0.001) a lower rate of nocturnal non-severe hypoglycemia compared to earlier intermediate/basal insulin users. Overall severe hypoglycemia rates were similar among second-generation and earlier intermediate/basal insulin users (p = 0.35); however, the rate of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia was reduced by 44% (95% CI 10-65%, p = 0.02) among second-generation insulin users compared to earlier intermediate/basal insulin users. Our real-world results suggest second-generation basal insulin analogues reduce rates of hypoglycemia, especially nocturnal non-severe and severe events. Whenever possible and feasible, clinicians should prioritize prescribing these agents over first-generation basal or intermediate insulin in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes.

Practical guide in using insulin degludec/insulin aspart: A multidisciplinary approach in Malaysia.

Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) co-formulation provides both basal and mealtime glycaemic control in a single injection. The glucose level-lowering efficacy of IDegAsp is reported to be superior or non-inferior to that of the currently available insulin therapies with a lower rate of overall hypoglycaemia and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. An expert panel from Malaysia aims to provide insights into the utilisation of IDegAsp across a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (i.e. treatment-naive or insulin-naive patients or patients receiving treatment intensification from basal-only regimens, premixed insulin and basal-bolus insulin therapy). IDegAsp can be initiated as once-daily dosing for the main meal with the largest carbohydrate content with weekly dose adjustments based on patient response. A lower starting dose is recommended for patients with cardiac or renal comorbidities. Dose intensification with IDegAsp may warrant splitting into twice-daily dosing. IDegAsp twice-daily dosing does not need to be split at a 50:50 ratio but should be adjusted to match the carbohydrate content of meals. The treatment of patients choosing to fast during Ramadan should be switched to IDegAsp early before Ramadan, as a longer duration of titration leads to better glycated haemoglobin level reductions. The pre-Ramadan breakfast/lunch insulin dose can be reduced by 30%-50% and taken during sahur, while the preRamadan dinner dose can be taken without any change during iftar. Education on the main meal concept is important, as carbohydrates are present in almost all meals. Patients should not have a misconception of consuming more carbohydrates while taking IDegAsp.

Association between the severity of nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia and heart rate variability change in patients with type 2 diabetes

Association between the severity of nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia and heart rate variability change in patients with type 2 diabetes

Hypoglycaemia events with iGlarLixi versus premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin: An analysis of the SoliMix trial.

To explore details of the incidence and rates of daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemia, levels of hypoglycaemia, and relationship to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), when comparing iGlarLixi versus premixed biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in the SoliMix randomized controlled trial. This exploratory analysis of SoliMix used logistic regression and negative binomial regression analyses to assess between-treatment differences in the incidence and rates of hypoglycaemia by time of day. A negative binomial model was used to derive estimated annualized hypoglycaemia rates as a function of HbA1c. iGlarLixi was associated with lower incidence and rates of American Diabetes Association Level 2 (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia during both night and day versus BIAsp 30. Incidence and rates of Level 1 (<70 to ≥54 mg/dL [<3.9 to ≥3.0 mmol/L]) hypoglycaemia were also mostly shown to be reduced with iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30. Severe (Level 3) events were too few for analysis (n=3). iGlarLixi was associated with lower modelled event rates of Level 2 and Level 1 hypoglycaemia over a wide range of HbA1c levels versus BIAsp 30. These results show that the lower HbA1c levels and weight benefit seen with iGlarLixi versus premixed BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes advancing their basal insulin therapy in the SoliMix trial are also accompanied by a lower risk of hypoglycaemia at any time of day and across a broad range of HbA1c levels.

38-OR: Glycemic Control with Ultrarapid Lispro (URLi) vs. Lispro in Children and Adolescents with T1D: PRONTO-Peds

This phase 3, treat-to-target study evaluated efficacy and safety of URLi vs. lispro in 716 pediatric patients (pts) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) . After 4-week lead-in to optimize basal insulin, pts were randomized to double-blind URLi (n=280) or lispro (n=298) injected 0-2 min prior to meals, or open-label URLi (n=138) injected up to 20 min after meals (URLi+20) . Pts remained on prestudy basal insulin (degludec, detemir, or glargine) . Primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline after 26 weeks. Noninferiority was shown in HbA1c change with URLi vs. lispro: estimated treatment difference (ETD) -0.02% (95% CI -0.17, 0.13) and with URLi+20 vs. lispro: ETD -0.02% (95% CI -0.20, 0.17) . Postprandial glucose (PPG) measured by self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) was lower with URLi vs. lispro 1 h after breakfast (p&amp;lt;0.001) and dinner (p=0.006) . URLi significantly reduced 1 h postmeal glucose daily mean vs. lispro (p=0.001) . Total daily insulin dose was similar between treatments. There were no significant differences among treatments in rate or incidence of severe, nocturnal or documented hypoglycemia (&amp;lt;54 mg/dL) . With URLi vs. lispro, rate of postdose hypoglycemia (&amp;lt;54 mg/dL) was higher at ≤2 h (p=0.034) . Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups. More pts reported an injection site reaction related event with URLi (7.9%) and URLi+20 (2.9%) vs. lispro (2.7%) . All injection site reactions were mild or moderate in severity. Two URLi patients discontinued the study due to injection site reactions. In children and adolescents with T1D, URLi demonstrated similar overall glycemic control and greater PPG lowering with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile compared with lispro. URLi dosed at the start of meals or up to 20 min after the start of meals showed noninferiority for HbA1c change from baseline vs. lispro. URLi dosed at the beginning of meals showed lower PPG at 1 h after breakfast and dinner and lower 1 h postmeal glucose daily mean vs. lispro. Disclosure R. Wadwa: Advisory Panel; Dompé. Consultant; Beta Bionics, Inc. Research Support; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Other Relationship; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. L.M. Laffel: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care. Consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Dexcom, Inc., Dompé, Insulet Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Inc. D.R. Franco: Advisory Panel; Abbott Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. Research Support; Eli Lilly and Company. Speaker's Bureau; Abbott Diabetes, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi. M.A. Dellva: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. R.K. Pollom: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Funding Eli Lilly and Company

IDF21-0675 IDegAsp treatment was associated with improved glycaemic control and reduced hypoglycaemia rates: a real-world study

Background: Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) has been shown to provide effective glycaemic control with reduced rates of hypoglycaemia compared with other insulin regimens in a large phase 3 clinical trial programme in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Aim: To evaluate glycaemic control and investigate the incidence of hypoglycaemia in people with T2D after initiating or switching to IDegAsp from any anti-diabetic treatment (including oral anti-diabetic drugs [OADs], basal insulin, basal–bolus insulin, premix insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist [GLP-1 RA] ± insulin) in real-world clinical practice across six countries. Method: This was a 26-week, open-label, non-interventional study (NCT04042441) conducted in Australia, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Data were obtained from 1102 adults with T2D initiating or switching to IDegAsp as per local clinical practice. The incidence of self-reported non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes (overall and nocturnal), occurring within 4 weeks prior to IDegAsp initiation (baseline) and 4 weeks prior to end of study (EOS, first visit from week 26–36), and self-reported severe hypoglycaemic episodes, occurring within 26 weeks prior to baseline and 26 weeks prior to EOS, were analysed using a negative binomial regression model. Results: Compared with baseline, there was a significant improvement in HbA1c at EOS (baseline HbA1c [standard deviation], 9.8% [1.99]; estimated change: –1.4% [–1.51;–1.29]95%CI; p < 0.0001 [primary endpoint]). There was also a significant reduction in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to EOS (estimated change: –49.0 mg/dL [–53.77;–44.29]95%CI; p < 0.0001). The overall incidence rates of severe, non-severe and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia decreased significantly between the period prior to baseline and the period before EOS (Table). Discussion: Overall, in a broad, real-world population of adults with T2D, initiating or switching to IDegAsp was associated with improved glycaemic control and significantly lower rates of severe, non-severe and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia.

Nocturnal Hypoglycemia Associated with Bedtime Administration of Premixed Insulin Preparations in Hospitalized Patients.

Patients with diabetes mellitus for whom premixed insulin preparations (PMIPs) are ordered in the hospital setting may be at risk of hypoglycemia if the PMIP is incorrectly administered at bedtime (instead of suppertime). The primary objective was to determine, retrospectively, the incidence of bedtime administration of PMIPs at a tertiary teaching hospital. The secondary objective was to investigate whether bedtime administration of PMIPs led to an increase in nocturnal hypoglycemia. Inpatient PMIP orders for the period April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2017, were extracted from the pharmacy information system of the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Two hundred randomly selected inpatient admissions were audited, and instances of PMIP administration after 2000 (8 pm) were recorded. Data from an additional random sample of inpatient admissions, from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, were reviewed to determine whether bedtime administration of PMIPs was associated with increased incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia, relative to suppertime administration. In the randomly selected sample of 200 inpatient admissions, a PMIP was administered at bedtime at least once during 47 admissions (24%). In the additional sample of 123 inpatient admissions during which a PMIP had been administered, the mean nocturnal hypoglycemia rate was 4.15% for suppertime administration and 14.85% for bedtime administration (p = 0.13). For a substantial proportion of patients, PMIPs were inappropriately ordered and administered at bedtime in this hospital setting and may have been associated with nocturnal hypoglycemic events. Recommendations to reduce this practice include ongoing education and a review of preprinted order sets.

Comparison of treatment with insulin degludec and glargine U100 in patients with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia: The HypoDeg randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial.

AimTo investigate whether the long‐acting insulin analogue insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 reduces the risk of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).MethodsAdults with T1D and at least one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the last 2 years were included in a 2‐year prospective, randomized, open, multicentre, crossover trial. A total of 149 patients were randomized 1:1 to basal‐bolus therapy with insulin degludec and insulin aspart or insulin glargine U100 and insulin aspart. Each treatment period lasted 1 year and consisted of 3 months of run‐in or crossover followed by 9 months of maintenance. The primary endpoint was the number of blindly adjudicated nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia. We analysed all endpoints by intention‐to‐treat.ResultsTreatment with insulin degludec resulted in a 28% (95% CI: 9%‐43%; P = .02) relative rate reduction (RRR) of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia at level 1 (≤3.9 mmol/L), a 37% (95% CI: 16%‐53%; P = .002) RRR at level 2 (≤3.0 mmol/L), and a 35% (95% CI: 1%‐58%; P = .04) RRR in all‐day severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine U100.ConclusionsPatients with T1D prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia have lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia and all‐day severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Switching to Insulin Degludec from Other Basal Insulins in a Real-World Canadian Population with Type1 or Type2 Diabetes: The CAN-TREAT Study.

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to examine glycaemic control and safety of insulin degludec (degludec) in patients with either type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) under routine care settings in Canada.MethodsData were extracted from medical records of adults with T1D or T2D who switched to degludec (± prandial insulin) from another basal insulin (± prandial insulin) ≥ 6 months prior to data collection. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 6 ± 3 months after degludec initiation. Secondary endpoints included change in hypoglycaemia rate in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after switching, and change in mean total daily insulin dose.ResultsOf 667 patients assessed for eligibility, 626 were included. After 6 ± 3 months, HbA1c decreased from baseline in patients with T1D (− 0.3% [− 0.42, − 0.14]95% CI; p < 0.001) and in patients with T2D (− 0.4% [− 0.55, − 0.30]95% CI; p < 0.001). In patients with T1D, there were significant reductions in the rates of overall (rate ratio [RR] 0.70), non-severe (RR 0.69), non-severe nocturnal (RR 0.36), and severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.12; all p ≤ 0.004). In patients with T2D there was a significant reduction in non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.22; p < 0.001). Mean daily basal insulin dose decreased in patients with T1D (− 1.6 units [− 2.8, − 0.4]95% CI; p = 0.008); there was no significant change in patients with T2D (− 0.6 units [− 2.7, 1.4]95% CI; p = 0.543).ConclusionIn routine clinical practice, improved glycaemic control was observed in patients with T1D or T2D switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins, with either improvement or no change in hypoglycaemia rates.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03674866Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-021-01063-5.

Efficacy and safety of Changsulin® compared with Lantus® in type 2 diabetes: a phase III multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel, controlled clinical trial

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of Changsulin® with Lantus® in treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: This was a phase Ⅲ, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, active-controlled clinical trial. A total of 578 participants with T2DM inadequately controlled on oral hypoglycemic agents were randomized 3∶1 to Changsulin® or Lantus® treatment for 24 weeks. The efficacy measures included changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2h postprandial plasma glucose (2hPG), 8-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) profiles from baseline, and proportions of subjects achieving targets of HbA1c and FPG. The safety outcomes included rates of hypoglycemia, adverse events (AEs) and anti-insulin glargine antibody. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, mean HbAlc decreased 1.16% and 1.25%, FPG decreased 3.05 mmol/L and 2.90 mmol/L, 2hPG decreased 2.49 mmol/L and 2.38 mmol/L in Changsulin® and in Lantus®, respectively. No significant differences could be viewed in above parameters between the two groups (all P>0.05). There were also no significant differences between Changsulin® and Lantus® in 8-point SMBG profiles from baseline and proportions of subjects achieving the targets of HbA1c and FPG (all P>0.05). The rates of total hypoglycemia (38.00% and 39.01% for Changsulin® and Lantus®, respectively) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (17.25% and 16.31% for Changsulin® and Lantus®, respectively) were similar between the two groups (all P>0.05). Most of the hypoglycemia events were asymptomatic, and no severe hypoglycemia were found in both groups. No differences were observed in rates of AEs (61.77% vs.52.48%) and anti-insulin glargine antibody (after 24 weeks of treatment, 6.91% vs.3.65%) between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions: Changsulin® shows similar efficacy and safety profiles compared with Lantus® and Changsulin® treatment was well tolerated in patients with T2DM.

Reduced Rates of Hypoglycemia in Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes After Switching to Insulin Degludec: Results from the Italian Cohort of the ReFLeCT Study

IntroductionTo evaluate in an Italian real-world setting the safety and effectiveness of insulin degludec 100 units/mL, given once daily in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after switching from other basal insulins.MethodsReFLeCT was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted across seven European countries which involved adult patients whose physician planned to switch their medication from basal insulin to insulin degludec. The primary outcome was the change in the number of hypoglycemic episodes before and after the switch to insulin degludec. Results are expressed as 12-month follow-up/baseline incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsThe Italian cohort of the ReFLect study comprised 148 patients with T1DM and 311 patients with T2DM. In patients with T1DM, the switch to insulin degludec was associated with significantly lower rates of overall (IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.82), non-severe (IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.85), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31–0.69). Following the switch, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels decreased significantly by 0.35% (95% CI − 0.50 to − 0.20), with no significant changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and basal insulin dose. Body weight increased by 0.83 kg (95% CI 0.16–1.50). In patients with T2DM, significant reductions in the rates of overall (IRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29–0.55), non-severe (IRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.63), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (IRR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–0.86) were documented. HbA1c and FPG decreased significantly by 0.45% (95% CI − 0.58 to − 0.31) and 0.90 mmol/L (95% CI − 1.21 to − 0.59], respectively, with no significant changes in basal insulin dose or body weight. Treatment satisfaction significantly improved in both diabetes types.ConclusionIn Italian routine clinical practice, switching from other basal insulins to insulin degludec reduced the total episodes of hypoglycemia and improved glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with T1DM and T2DM.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02392117.Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-020-00936-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hypoglycaemia assessment tool (HAT) study: subanalysis of the Lebanese cohort.

Diabetic hypoglycaemia affects medication adherence, patients' productivity and quality of life. It is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. To examine the impact of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated patients in the Lebanese cohort of the Hypoglycaemia Assessment Tool (HAT) study. The HAT study was an observational study covering a 6-month retrospective and a 4-week prospective period in 24 countries including Lebanon. Data were collected using self-assessment questionnaires and patient diaries from 1158 invited lebanese patients, aged ≥ 18 years, with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) treated with insulin for > 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 1 hypoglycaemic event during the 4-week follow-up period. After 4 weeks of follow-up, 177/225 [78.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 72.7-83.8] of patients with T1DM and 291/630 (46.2%; 95% CI: 42.2-50.2) patients with T2D experienced at least 1 hypoglycaemic event. Rates of nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia were 10.7 (95% CI: 9.1-12.3) and 13.2 (95% CI: 11.5-14.9) events/patient-year for T1DM, and 3.3 (95% CI: 2.8-3.8) and 4.2 events/patient-year (95% CI: 3.6-4.8) for T2DM, respectively. Fear of hypoglycaemia was significantly associated with nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia in both diabetes types (P < 0.001). The results suggest that the less-advanced healthcare systems in Lebanon are implicated in lower levels of patient knowledge about hypoglycaemia and related preventive measures. Treatment strategies and glycaemia goals should be individualized according to patient preference, medical benefits, and risk of hypoglycaemia.

270-OR: Nocturnal Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec and Glargine U100 in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Prone to Severe Nocturnal Hypoglycemia (HypoDeg): A CGM Substudy

Background and Aims: Nocturnal hypoglycemia is a major source of concern of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and may result in suboptimal glycemic control due to avoidance behavior. Optimal basal insulin therapy may reduce nocturnal hypoglycemia. Insulin degludec is associated with lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia in T1D. However, it has not been studied in people specifically prone to severe nocturnal hypoglycemia. We report frequencies of CGM-recorded nocturnal non-severe hypoglycemia (NSH) from the HypoDeg trial, which compared insulin degludec with insulin glargine in people with T1D and previous severe nocturnal hypoglycemia. Materials and Methods: Seventy-four people completed 4 x 6 days of blinded CGM (Medtronic iPro) during a 2-year randomized cross-over study. CGM traces were reviewed for clinically important hypoglycemic events ≤ 3.0 mmol/L according to current international consensus. Results: When defining night-time from 23-06:59 a total of 193 episodes of nocturnal NSH were found at the glucose threshold ≤ 3.0 mmol/L. A 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35%-64%; p&amp;lt;0.001) relative risk reduction (RRR) in nocturnal NSH during treatment with insulin degludec (0.6 episodes/person-week) was observed as compared to insulin glargine (1.3 episodes/person-week). The reduction in nocturnal NSH was mainly due to a 52% (95%[CI]:32-70%; p&amp;lt;0.001) RRR in nocturnal asymptomatic hypoglycemia with insulin degludec (0.4 episodes/person-week) as compared to insulin glargine (0.9 episodes/person-week). Similar results were found when defining night-time from 00-05:59. Conclusion: People with T1D prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycemia have lower rates of CGM-recorded nocturnal hypoglycemia with insulin degludec as compared to insulin glargine. Disclosure J.M. Brøsen: None. R.M. Agesen: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. A. Alibegovic: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. H.U. Andersen: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. P. Gustenhoff: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis. T.K. Hansen: None. T. Jensen: Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. C.B. Juhl: None. S. Lerche: None. K. Nørgaard: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Medtronic. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Medtronic, Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc. H.D. Parving: None. L. Tarnow: None. B. Thorsteinsson: None. U. Pedersen-Bjergaard: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S.

1021-P: HbA1c Levels and Rates of Hypoglycemia with Insulin Degludec U200 and Insulin Glargine U300 Stratified by Renal Function Subgroups: Post Hoc Analysis from the CONCLUDE Trial

CONCLUDE was a randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial in participants with T2D, who received basal insulin ± oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs) and had ≥1 baseline hypoglycemia risk factors, including moderate renal impairment. Participants were randomized to degludec U200 or glargine U300 (± OADs). CONCLUDE demonstrated no significant difference in the overall symptomatic hypoglycemia rate with degludec U200 vs. glargine U300 in the maintenance period (primary endpoint, tested for superiority). However, lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycemia in the maintenance period (exploratory secondary endpoints) were observed with degludec U200 vs. glargine U300. The current post-hoc analysis investigated these hypoglycemia endpoints and HbA1c stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) subgroups (&amp;lt;60, 60-&amp;lt;90, ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2). Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment and rates and rate ratios for all hypoglycemia endpoints were comparable across eGFR subgroups and to the primary analyses. No statistically significant interactions were found between the subgroups for the endpoints assessed (Table). Irrespective of renal function, degludec U200 and glargine U300 resulted in similar HbA1c, and hypoglycemia rates were consistent with the primary analyses. Disclosure T.R. Pieber: Advisory Panel; Self; ADOCIA, Arecor, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Diagnostics K.K. H.S. Bajaj: Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., mdBriefCase, Medscape, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc. S.R. Heller: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, Zealand Pharma A/S. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk A/S. Other Relationship; Self; MannKind Corporation. T. Jia: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. K. Khunti: Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Berlin-Chemie AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Group, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp., Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Board Member; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis. Consultant; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Berlin-Chemie AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Group, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp., Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp., Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Berlin-Chemie AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Menarini Group, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corp., Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. D.C. Klonoff: Consultant; Self; Abbott, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Inc., EOFlow, Fractyl Laboratories, Inc., Know Labs, LifeCare, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Roche Diabetes Care. S. Ladelund: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. L.A. Leiter: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck &amp; Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Servier. Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Medicines Company. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, HLS Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medscape, Merck &amp; Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi, Servier. M.V. Hansen: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Spouse/Partner; Novo Nordisk A/S. A. Philis-Tsimikas: Advisory Panel; Self; Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Funding Novo Nordisk A/S

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

IntroductionThis study aimed to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec 200 units/mL (degludec) versus insulin glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) from a Dutch societal perspective.MethodsA previously published model estimated costs [2018 euros (EUR)] and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec compared with glargine U300 over a 1-year time horizon. The model captured hypoglycaemia rates and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by CONCLUDE (NCT03078478), a head-to-head randomised controlled trial in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes.ResultsTreatment with degludec was associated with mean annual cost savings (EUR 24.71 per patient) relative to glargine U300, driven by a lower basal insulin dose and lower severe hypoglycaemia rate with degludec compared with glargine U300. Lower rates of non-severe nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+ 0.0045 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U300. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes.ConclusionsThis short-term analysis, informed by the latest clinical trial evidence, demonstrated that degludec was a cost-effective treatment option relative to glargine U300. As such, our modelling analysis suggests that degludec would represent an efficient use of Dutch public healthcare resources in this patient population.Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01332-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial

Aims/hypothesisA head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin.MethodsThis randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥18 years with HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ≤45 kg/m2. Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0–5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period.ResultsOf the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300.Conclusions/interpretationThere was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478FundingThis trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark)