-
Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej 2011Although numerous studies showed an improvement in glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients treated with long-acting insulin analogue detemir compared with Neutral... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Although numerous studies showed an improvement in glycemic control in type 1 diabetic patients treated with long-acting insulin analogue detemir compared with Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the beneficial effects of insulin detemir has not been confirmed by all investigators.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the study was to compare the effect of treatment with detemir insulin vs. NPH insulin on metabolic control, hypoglycemic episodes, and body weight gain in patients with type 1 diabetes by means of a systematic review and a meta-analysis.
METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched up to November 2010: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Additional references were obtained from the reviewed articles. Only randomized controlled trials of at least 12-week duration with basal-bolus regimen therapies using detemir insulin vs. NPH insulin were included.
RESULTS
The analysis included 10 studies involving 3825 patients with type 1 diabetes. Combined data from all trials showed a statistically significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (weighted mean difference: [WMD] -0.073, 95% CI -0.135 to -0.011, P = 0.021) in the detemir group compared with the NPH group. There was also a significant reduction of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (WMD - 0.977 mmol/l, 95% CI -1.395 to -0.558, P <0.001), all-day hypoglycemic episodes (relative risk [RR] 0.978, 95% CI 0.961-0.996), severe hypoglycemic episodes (RR 0.665, 95% CI 0.547-0.810), nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes (RR 0.877, 95% CI 0.816-0.942), as well as smaller body weight gain (WMD -0.779 kg, 95% CI -0.992 to -0.567) in patients using detemir insulin compared with those using NPH insulin.
CONCLUSIONS
Basal-bolus treatment with insulin detemir, as compared with NPH insulin, provided a minor benefit in terms of the HbA1c value and significantly reduced FPG in type 1 diabetic patients. Treatment with detemir insulin was also superior to NPH insulin in reducing the risk of all-day, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic episodes, with the added benefit of reduced weight gain.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Body Weight; Delayed-Action Preparations; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Drug Administration Schedule; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Detemir; Insulin, Long-Acting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21878861
DOI: No ID Found -
Acta Diabetologica Aug 2015A variety of basal insulin preparations are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to summarize scientific evidence on relative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of insulin glargine with NPH insulin, premixed insulin preparations or with insulin detemir in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
AIMS
A variety of basal insulin preparations are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to summarize scientific evidence on relative efficacy and safety of insulin glargine (IGlar) and other insulins in T2DM.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out in major medical databases up to December 2012. Relevant studies compared efficacy and safety of IGlar, added to oral drugs (OAD) or/and in combination with bolus insulin, with protamine insulin (NPH) or premixed insulin (MIX) in the same regimen, as well as with insulin detemir (IDet), in T2DM. Target HbA1c level without hypoglycemic events was considered the primary endpoint.
RESULTS
Twenty eight RCTs involving 12,669 T2DM patients followed for 12-52 weeks were included in quantitative analysis. IGlar + OAD use was associated with higher probability of reaching target HbA1c level without hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 1.32 [1.09, 1.59]) or MIX without OAD (RR = 1.61 [1.22, 2.13]) and similar effect as IDet + OAD (RR = 1.07 [0.87, 1.33]) and MIX + OAD (RR = 1.09 [0.86, 1.38]). IGlar + OAD demonstrated significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), MIX + OAD (RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]) and MIX without OAD(RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]), but not with IDet + OAD (RR = 0.99 [0.90, 1.08]). In basal-bolus regimens, IGlar demonstrated similar proportion of T2DM patients achieving target HbA1c as compared to NPH (RR = 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]) but higher than MIX (RR = 1.26 [1.12, 1.42) or IDet (RR = 1.38 [1.11, 1.72]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was lower in IGlar than in NPH (RR = 0.77 [0.63, 0.94]), with no differences in comparison with MIX (RR = 0.74 [0.46, 1.20]) and IDet (RR = 1.10 [0.54, 2.25]). IGlar + OAD has comparable safety profile to NPH, with less frequent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than MIX + OAD (RR = 0.41 [0.22, 0.76]) and IDet + OAD (RR = 0.40 [0.24, 0.69]). Also severe adverse reactions were less common for IGlar + OAD when compared to MIX + OAD (RR = 0.71 [0.52; 0.98]).
CONCLUSION
For the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Detemir; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Isophane; Insulin, Long-Acting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25585592
DOI: 10.1007/s00592-014-0698-4 -
Clinical Therapeutics Nov 2022The 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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 A 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.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Insulin Glargine; Insulin Detemir; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin, Long-Acting; Hypoglycemia; Glycated Hemoglobin; Blood Glucose
PubMed: 36763996
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2022.09.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2011Chronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
MAIN RESULTS
This review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Detemir; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Long-Acting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21735405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006383.pub2 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Feb 2018To assess the relative efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the relative efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).
METHODS
A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials comparing two or more basal insulin regimens were conducted. The following basal insulin regimens were included: Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (iNPH) (once [od], twice [bid], and four times daily [qid]), insulin detemir (iDet) (od and bid), insulin glargine 100 IU (iGlarg) (od), and insulin degludec (iDegl) (od). We searched the following databases: MEDLINE via OVID, Embase via OVID, and the Cochrane Library (Wiley). Study quality was appraised using Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist for randomized controlled trials. Two outcomes (change in hemoglobin A [HbA] and rate of severe/major hypoglycemia [SH]) were analyzed. Network inconsistency was assessed using Bucher and chi-square tests.
RESULTS
Thirty studies met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-five were included in the HbA network and 16 in the SH network. All studies were of moderate quality. No network inconsistency was evident in the HbA network. Of the seven regimens of interest, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being best (mean change in HbA -0.48; 95% credible interval -0.69 to -0.29). In contrast, the SH network demonstrated both considerable uncertainty and significant network inconsistency (χ test, P = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
Of the specified frequency regimens, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being the best basal insulin regimen in terms of reduction in HbA. Ranking of the regimens in terms of the SH rate was highly uncertain and no clear conclusion could be made.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Insulin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29477399
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.024 -
Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology... 2018Diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) is an autoimmune disease characterized by metabolic destruction of pancreatic cells responsible for insulin production, with treatment...
BACKGROUND
Diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) is an autoimmune disease characterized by metabolic destruction of pancreatic cells responsible for insulin production, with treatment based on replacing insulin. Long-acting insulin analogs are indicated for patients with DM1 who exhibit important oscillations of their daily glycemia, despite its higher cost. Our study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two long-acting insulins, insulin glargine and detemir, in treating patients with DM1.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies (cohort and registry) available in the databases and the gray literature, and a complementary search in the journal. Outcomes assessed were: glycated hemoglobin concentration; fasting plasma or capillary glucose; occurrence of episodes of severe hypoglycemia and occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia. The assessment of methodological quality was performed using the Newcastle score. The meta-analyses were performed on software Review Manager 5.2.
RESULTS
Out of 705 publications, 8 cohort studies were included. The quality of these studies was classified as high. In the meta-analysis, results regarding episodes of severe hypoglycemia ( = 0.02) and fasting glucose ( = 0.01) were in favor of detemir. The glycated hemoglobin ( = 0.49; = 89) showed high heterogeneity and no statistically significant difference between the two. The meta-analysis of total insulin dose favored glargine ( = 0.006; = 75). The rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia (NH) were evaluated only for one study and showed a significant reduction of NH after therapy with detemir, ( < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Although some outcomes were favorable to detemir insulin analog, it has not been possible to identify important differences of effectiveness and safety between the two analogs. These results can help in the current debate on the inclusion of long-acting analogs on the list of reimbursed medicines in Brazil, especially with the recent introduction of an insulin glargine biosimilar at a considerably lower price.
PubMed: 30181850
DOI: 10.1177/2042018818781414 -
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome Oct 2022To assess the impact of long-acting insulin analogues, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron (NPH), on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. (Review)
Review
Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To assess the impact of long-acting insulin analogues, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron (NPH), on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes.
METHODS
Studies for inclusion in the review were identified using a structured search strategy in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. Studies that were randomized controlled trials or observational in design were considered for inclusion. Eligible studies should have compared the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) managed by intermediate acting (NPH) and by long-acting insulin analogues. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software.
RESULTS
We found 17 studies to be eligible for inclusion. The mean gestational weight gain and risk of maternal hypoglycaemia, hypertensive disorder, caesarean delivery, spontaneous abortion, endometritis and wound infection or dehiscence were similar among pregnant women with GDM managed using long-acting insulin analogues and NPH. Those receiving long-acting insulin analogues had significantly lower HbA1c values in the second (WMD - .09, 95% CI 0.12, - 0.06; N = 4) and third trimester (WMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.14, - 0.02; N = 12). The mean gestational age and birth weight and risk of perinatal mortality, prematurity, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, shoulder dystocia and congenital abnormalities was similar among babies in both groups. No statistically significant differences in risk of admission to neonatal intensive care unit, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycaemia, 5 min APGAR score of < 7, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and sepsis was observed. The quality of pooled evidence, as per GRADE criteria, was judged to be "very low" for all the maternal and neonatal outcomes considered.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings suggest no significant differences in the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between intermediate and long-acting insulin analogues. The results provide support for use of long-acting insulin analogues in women with GDM. However, evidence is still needed from high quality randomized controlled trials to arrive at a recommendation for inclusion in routine clinical care.
PubMed: 36271431
DOI: 10.1186/s13098-022-00925-7 -
BMJ Open Feb 2016To compare the efficacy and safety of a concentrated formulation of insulin glargine (Gla-300) with other basal insulin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of a concentrated formulation of insulin glargine (Gla-300) with other basal insulin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
DESIGN
This was a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised clinical trials of basal insulin therapy in T2DM identified via a systematic literature review of Cochrane library databases, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and PsycINFO.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Changes in HbA1c (%) and body weight, and rates of nocturnal and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia were assessed.
RESULTS
41 studies were included; 25 studies comprised the main analysis population: patients on basal insulin-supported oral therapy (BOT). Change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was comparable between Gla-300 and detemir (difference: -0.08; 95% credible interval (CrI): -0.40 to 0.24), neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH; 0.01; -0.28 to 0.32), degludec (-0.12; -0.42 to 0.20) and premixed insulin (0.26; -0.04 to 0.58). Change in body weight was comparable between Gla-300 and detemir (0.69; -0.31 to 1.71), NPH (-0.76; -1.75 to 0.21) and degludec (-0.63; -1.63 to 0.35), but significantly lower compared with premixed insulin (-1.83; -2.85 to -0.75). Gla-300 was associated with a significantly lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate versus NPH (risk ratio: 0.18; 95% CrI: 0.05 to 0.55) and premixed insulin (0.36; 0.14 to 0.94); no significant differences were noted in Gla-300 versus detemir (0.52; 0.19 to 1.36) and degludec (0.66; 0.28 to 1.50). Differences in documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates of Gla-300 versus detemir (0.63; 0.19 to 2.00), NPH (0.66; 0.27 to 1.49) and degludec (0.55; 0.23 to 1.34) were not significant. Extensive sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of these findings.
CONCLUSIONS
NMA comparisons are useful in the absence of direct randomised controlled data. This NMA suggests that Gla-300 is also associated with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia compared with NPH and premixed insulin, with glycaemic control comparable to available basal insulin comparators.
Topics: Body Weight; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin Glargine
PubMed: 26880669
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009421 -
Journal of Diabetes May 2023To investigate the effectiveness, safety, optimal starting dose, optimal maintenance dose range, and target fasting plasma glucose of five basal insulins in... (Meta-Analysis)
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.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Insulin Glargine; Insulin, Long-Acting; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Detemir; Insulin, Isophane
PubMed: 37038616
DOI: 10.1111/1753-0407.13381 -
BMJ Open Nov 2022To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).
DESIGN
Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.
RESULTS
We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42015023511.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Insulin Glargine; Glycated Hemoglobin; Hypoglycemic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Insulin, Long-Acting; Insulin; Hypoglycemia; Insulin, Isophane
PubMed: 36332950
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058034