The comparative analysis of efficacy and safety parameters of Insulin Degludec versus Insulin Glargine: A Narrative Review

Main Article Content

Anzhelika Magomedova, MPH

Abstract

Background and aim: Insulin degludec and insuline glargine are the two long-acting insulins most commonly prescribed for the treatment of Diabetes Type 1 as well as Diabetes Type 2. Both insulins were generated to address a clinical need for the basal insulin which produces a more even and flat activity profile and reduces the number of hypoglycemia- a dangerous side effect of insulin therapy. Although glargine and degludec confirmed their superiority in terms of reduced rate of hypoglycemia, especially in comparison with first generations, several studies revealed that degludec is associated with less glycemic variability. Moreover, degludec is more effective in reaching better fasting plasma glucose levels without increasing a risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. The aim of this study is to compare the five most essential efficacy and safety parameters of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine.


Methods: This study used a narrative synthesis of the research findings. The search for existing narrative and systematic reviews on the research topic was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar electronic databases. Reviews were selected according to a study design and methodological quality of the included studies. The reviews published within 2015-2023 period were included. The data on five safety and efficacy parameters (the reduction of fasting plasma glucose level, HbA1c levels, overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes, body weight gain) were retrieved for the analysis.


Findings: The analysis of data retrieved out of 10 systematic reviews confirmed superiority of insulin degludec in comparison with insulin glargine in terms of four safety and efficacy parameters. The treatment with degludec was associated with fewer overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes, a better reduction of fasting plasma glucose levels in both Diabetes Type 1 and Diabetes Type 2 groups (insulin naïve and experienced) patients, less weight gain in Diabetes Type 2 insulin experienced group and Diabetes Type 1 groups. Both insulins provided a similar reduction of HbA1c levels among patients with Diabetes Type 1 and Diabetes Type 2. 


Conclusion: In conclusion, this narrative review revealed that insulin degludec is superior to insulin glargine in terms of four safety and efficacy parameters such as change in fasting plasma glucose, body weight gain, nocturnal and overall hypoglycemia episodes. Degludec and glargine produced similar changes in HbA1c levels. The most pronounced differences in almost all the examined reviews were detected in the variables indicating nocturnal and overall hypoglycemia. The treatment with degludec also resulted in less hypoglycemia, accompanied with a better reduction of fasting plasma glucose levels. This characteristic confirms that degludec produces less glycemic variability and a close to physiological activity profile.

Article Details

How to Cite
MAGOMEDOVA, Anzhelika. The comparative analysis of efficacy and safety parameters of Insulin Degludec versus Insulin Glargine: A Narrative Review. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 1, jan. 2024. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/4944>. Date accessed: 03 mar. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v12i1.4944.
Section
Review Articles

References

1. Woo V, Berard L, Roscoe R. Understanding the Clinical Profile of Insulin Degludec, the Latest Basal Insulin Approved for Use in Canada: a Narrative Review. 2020; Diabetes Ther, 11: 2539–2553. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13300-020-00915-w.pdf Accessed December 15, 2023.
2. World Health Organisation. Diabetes. 2020. Geneva: WHO Press. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes Accessed December 15, 2023.
3. World Health Organisation. WHO reveals leading causes of death and disability worldwide:2000-2019. 2020. Geneva: WHO Press. https://www.who.int/news/item/09-12-2020-who-reveals-leading-causes-of-death-and-disability-worldwide-2000-2019 Accessed December 15, 2023.
4. Syaifuddin M, Anbananthen MKS. Framework: Diabetes management system. IMPACT-2013; 2013:112-116. https://0-ieeexplore-ieee-org.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/document/6782099?arnumber=6782099 Accessed December 15, 2023.
5. CINAHL. Better diabetes management could prevent 1 million complications. Pract. Nurse. 2016. 46(2): 10-10. https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=23&sid=cfd1dcff-e11e-4527-bfb9-dda0077d3d1e%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=113300202&db=ccm Accessed October 14, 2023.
6. Febo FC, Molinari C, Piatti PM. Hypoglycemia and insulin treatment. Journal of Endocrinol Investig. 2011; 34(9): 698-701. https://0-link-springer-com.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/BF03345405.pdf Accessed December, 16, 2023.
7. Kalra S. Newer basal insulin analogues: Degludec, Detemir, Glargine. JPMA. 2013; 63(11): 1442-4. https://jpma.org.pk/article-details/5202?article_id=5202 Accessed December 3, 2023.
8. Edelman SV, Blose JS. The Impact of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia on Clinical and Cost-Related Issues in Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes. The Diabetes Educ.2014; 40(3):269-279. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0145721714529608?journalCode=tdea Accessed December 10, 2023
9. Koivikko ML. Changes in cardiac repolarisation during spontaneous nocturnal hypoglycaemia in subjects with type 1 diabetes: a preliminary report. Acta Diabetol,2017; 54(3): 251–256. https://0-link-springer-com.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/article/10.1007/s00592-016-0941-2 Accessed December, 16 2023.
10. Pettus J, Cavaiola TS, Tamborlane WV. (2015) The past, present, and future of basal insulins. Diab/Metabol Res and Rev. 2015; 32(6): 478-479. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/dmrr.2763?saml_referrer Accessed October 04, 2023.
11. Standi E & Owen D. New Long-Acting Basal Insulins: Does Benefit Outweigh Cost? Diabetes Care 2016 39(2): S172- S179. https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/39/Supplement_2/S172 Accessed November 24, 2023.
12. Lajara R, Cengiz E, Tanenberg RJ. The role of the new basal insulin analogs in addressing unmet clinical needs in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017; 33(6):1045-1055. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28277867/ Accessed December 04, 2023.
13. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York.2009. Available from: https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/guidance/ Accessed December 3, 2023.
14. Zhou W, Tao J, Zhou X et al. Insulin Degludec, a Novel Ultra-Long-Acting Basal Insulin versus Insulin Glargine for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diabetes Ther. 2011; 10: 835–852. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13300-019-0624-4#citeas Accessed December 07, 2023.
15. Liu W, Yang X, Huang J. Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec versus Insulin Glargine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Fifteen Clinical Trials. 2018. Int J Endocrinol. 2018. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ije/2018/8726046/ Accessed November 23, 2023.
16. Magomedova A. & Wallymahmed A. The Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Safety Parameters of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2023) LJP 23(12): 1-55. https://journalspress.com/LJMHR_Volume23/The-Comparative-Analysis-of-Efficacy-and-Safety-Parameters-of-Insulin-Degludec-Versus-Insulin-Glargine-A-Systematic-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-2023.pdf Accessed December 08, 2023.
17. Madenidou AV, Paschos P, Karagiannis T. Comparative Benefits and Harms of Basal Insulin Analogues for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018. 7; 169(3): 165-174. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29987326/ Accessed November 27, 2023.
18. Heller S, Mathieu C, Kapur R. A meta-analysis of rate ratios for nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine using different definitions for hypoglycaemia. Diabet Med. 2016; 33(4): 478-87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26484727/ Accessed December 05, 2023.
19. Ratner RE, Gough SC, Mathieu C, et al. Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a pre-planned meta-analysis of phase 3 trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013 ;15(2):175-84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23130654/ Accessed November 29, 2023.
20. Zhang XW, Zhang XL, Xu B. Comparative safety and efficacy of insulin degludec with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Acta Diabetol. 2018; 55(5): 429-441. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00592-018-1107-1 Accessed December 1, 2023.
21. Russel-Jones D, Gall MA, Niemeyer M, et al. Insulin degludec results in lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia and fasting plasma glucose vs. insulin glargine: A meta-analysis of seven clinical trials. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular diseases. 2015. 25(10): 898-905. https://www.nmcd-journal.com/article/S0939-4753(15)00151-9/fulltext Accessed November 26, 2023.
22. Hui E, Lam SL. In search of the ideal basal insulin: Does the new-generation ultra-long-acting insulin, degludec, provide the answer? Journal of Diabetes Investigation.2013; 4(1) :9-41. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2040-1124.2012.00243.x Accessed December 16, 2023.
23. Ajetunmobi O. Making Sense of Critical Appraisal. 1st edition. London: CRC Press. 2002. https://0-www-taylorfrancis-com.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/books/mono/10.1201/9780367807160/making-sense-critical-appraisal-ajetunmobi Accessed November 30, 2023.
24. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Randomized Controlled Trial Standard Checklist. 2019. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ Accessed November 10, 2023.
25. Bruce NG, Pope D. Quantitative Methods for Health Research: A Practical Interactive Guide to Epidemiology and Statistics, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester. 2017. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118665374 Accessed December 4, 2022.
26. Haig BD. The Philosophy of Quantitative Methods: Understanding Statistics. Oxford University Press. 2018. https://0-oxford-universitypressscholarship-com.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/view/10.1093/oso/9780190222055.001.0001/oso-9780190222055 Accessed November 11, 2022.
27. Egger M, Smith JD, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews In Health Care: Meta-Analysis In Context. 2nd edition. London: BMJ Publishing Group. 2001. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470693926.ch1 Accessed November,15 2023.
28. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315 (7109): 629-34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9310563/ Accessed December 7, 2023.
29. Littell J, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008. https://0-oxford-universitypressscholarship-com.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326543.001.0001/acprof-9780195326543-chapter-1 Accessed 15 February 2022.
30. Lim CY & In J. Randomization in clinical studies. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019. 72(3): 221-232. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6547231/ Accessed November 26, 2023.
31. Ingham- Bromfield RJP. A nurses’ guide to the hierarchy of research designs and evidence. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2016; 33(3): 38-43. https://www.ajan.com.au/archive/Vol33/Issue3/5Broomfield.pdf Accessed November 02, 2023.
32. Saks M. & Allsop J. Researching Health. 3rd edition. London: SAGE. 2019. Available from: https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781526471857?context_token=fcac4e60-7306-0139-47ee-36d50b605d09 Accessed September 28, 2023.
33. Wysham C, Bhargava A, Chaykin L et al. Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SWITCH 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017; 318(1): 45-56. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5817473/ Accessed November 30, 2023
34. Mikolajewicz N. & Komarova S. Meta-Analytic methodology for Basic Research: A Practical Guide. Front Physiol. 2019. 10: 203. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00203/full Accessed November 11, 2023.
35. Laake P., Benestad H.B. Research in Medical and Biological Sciences. From Planning and Preparation to Grant Application and Publication.2nd edition. Academic Press: New York. 2015. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/funnel-plot Accessed December 20, 2022.
36. Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 2011, 343: d4002. https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4002 Accessed December 3, 2023.
37. Velojic-Golubovic, M., Ciric, V., Dimitrijevic, M. et al. Clinical Benefit of Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Previously Uncontrolled on Basal or Premixed Insulin in Serbia: A Prospective, Observational, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Real-World Study. Diabetes Ther. 2021,12: 2049–2058. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13300-021-01074-2#Sec11 Accessed November 29, 2023
38. Rosenstock J, Cheng A, Ritzel R, et al. More Similarities Than Differences Testing Insulin Glargine 300 Units/mL Versus Insulin Degludec 100 Units/mL in Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes: The Randomized Head-to-Head BRIGHT Trial. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41(10):2147-2154. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30104294/ Accessed November 8, 2023.
39. Kawaguchi Y, Sawa J, Sakuma N. Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin degludec in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, open‐label, cross‐over study using continuous glucose monitoring profiles. J Diab Investig. 2018; 10(2): 343-351. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jdi.12884 Accessed November 10, 2023.
40. Robinson, J.D., Neumiller, J.J. & Campbell, R.K. Can a New Ultra-Long-Acting Insulin Analogue Improve Patient Care? Investigating the Potential Role of Insulin Degludec. Drugs. 2012. (72): 2319–2325. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23145524/ Accessed December 04, 2023.
41. Gelhorn H, Balantac Z, Shinde S. The Burden of Type 2 Diabetes and the Value of Achieving Near Normoglycemia from the Patient Perspective. Diabetes Ther. 2021; 12: 1821–1837. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13300-021-01054-6#citeas Accessed December 2, 2023.
42. Jansen HJ, Vervoort GMM, de Haan AFJ. Diabetes-Related Distress, Insulin Dose, and Age Contribute to Insulin-Associated Weight Gain in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Prospective Study. Diabetes Care. 2014; 37(10): 2710–2717. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/37/10/2710/30776/Diabetes-Related-Distress-Insulin-Dose-and-Age Accessed November 24, 2023.
43. Aas AM. Insulin-induced weight gain and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. A report from the DIGAMI 2 study. Diab Obes & Metabol. 2009; 11(4): 323-329. https://dom-pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2008.00964.x Accessed November 25, 2023.
44. Kumar S, Jang HC, Demirağ NG. Efficacy and safety of once‐daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart compared with once‐daily insulin glargine in participants with Type 2 diabetes: a randomized, treat‐to‐target study. Diab Med. 2017; 34(2): 180-188. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dme.13125 [Accessed November 29, 2023.