How conclusive is the CONCLUDE trial?

  • Stefano Del PratoEmail author


The development of basal insulin analogues has reduced the risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes. Insulin degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) represent an evolution of basal insulin analogues, both of them reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia as compared with that associated with glargine U100. However, whether degludec and glargine U300 are equivalent with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia remains to be fully ascertained. In the CONCLUDE trial, 1609 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomised to either degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) or glargine U300. In this issue of Diabetologia ( the investigators report that during the maintenance period, HbA1c improved to a similar extent in the two groups with no significant difference in the rate of overall hypoglycaemia (the primary endpoint of the study), while rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia (secondary endpoints) were lower with degludec U200 than with glargine U300. These results, although of great interest to the clinician, need to be carefully interpreted as they cannot be considered as conclusive. First, the primary endpoint was not met and, therefore, analyses of secondary endpoints remain exploratory. Even assuming that degludec is superior to glargine in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia, the mechanism(s) accounting for such an advantage remain elusive and potential differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics difficult to appreciate because of methodological issues. The study design had to be amended because of lack of reliability of the glucometers initially used in the trial, particularly in the low blood glucose ranges, so the potential implications of these changes in the subsequent conduct of the trial cannot be excluded. Finally, comparison with the BRIGHT trial, the only other available head-to-head study, is complicated by differences between the two studies in the primary endpoint (HbA1c reduction vs reduction of the risk of hypoglycaemia), study population (insulin-experienced vs insulin-naive) and concomitant glucose-lowering medications. In spite of all this, CONCLUDE teaches us an important lesson regarding the need, particularly in the clinical setting, to monitor the reliability of the glucometers the diabetic individual uses to adjust his/her insulin dose. Insufficient precision or inappropriate use of the glucometer can easily offset any minute advantage a new insulin can offer with respect to glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia.


Basal insulin analogues Degludec Glargine U300 Glucometer Hierarchical statistical analysis Home blood glucose monitoring Hypoglycaemia Pharmacodynamics Pharmacokinetics Type 2 diabetes 



Clinical Outcome assessmeNt of the eFfectiveness of Insulin degludec in Real-life Medical practice

Degludec U200

Insulin degludec 200 U/ml


European Medicines Agency

Glargine U300

Insulin glargine 300 U/ml



I am indebted to the EASD for giving me the task of delivering an independent commentary on the occasion of the presentation of the results of the CONCLUDE trial at the 55th Annual Meeting of the EASD. This paper is largely based on that commentary. I am also grateful to G. Bolli (University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy), T Heise (Profil, Neuss, Germany), J. Rosenstock (Dallas Diabetes Research Center at Medical City, Dallas, TX, USA) and the CONCLUDE trial investigators A. Philis-Tsimikas (Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego, CA, USA) and T. R. Pieber (Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria) for constructive discussion and for sharing their views, some of which I have reported in the paper.

Contribution statement

The author is the sole contributor to this paper.


This work was funded by the University of Pisa, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine.

Duality of interest

The author has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Co., and Merck Sharpe & Dohme; and is a consultant for or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Laboratoires Servier, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Co., Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Takeda.


  1. 1.
    Davies MJ, D’Alessio DA, Fradkin J et al (2018) Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 61(12):2461–2498. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Russell-Jones D, Pouwer F, Khunti K (2018) Identification of barriers to insulin therapy and approaches to overcoming them. Diabetes Obes Metab 20(3):488–496. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peterson GE (2006) Intermediate and long-acting insulins: a review of NPH insulin, insulin glargine and insulin detemir. Curr Med Res Opin 22(12):2613–2619. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Monami M, Marchionni N, Mannucci E (2008) Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH human insulin in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 81(2):184–189. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldman J, Kapitza C, Pettus J, Heise T (2017) Understanding how pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences of basal analog insulins influence clinical practice. Curr Med Res Opin 33(10):1821–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cahn A, Miccoli R, Dardano A, Del Prato S (2015) New forms of insulin and insulin therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 3(8):638–652. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roussel R, d'Emden MC, Fisher M et al (2018) Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes switching from twice-daily basal insulin to once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL or insulin glargine 100 U/mL (EDITION 1 and EDITION 2 subgroup analysis). Diabetes Obes Metab 20(2):448–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Russell-Jones D, Gall MA, Niemeyer M, Diamant M, Del Prato S (2015) Insulin degludec results in lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycaemia and fasting plasma glucose vs. insulin glargine: a meta-analysis of seven clinical trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 25(10):898–905. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Philis-Tsimikas A, Klonoff DC, Khunti K et al (2020) Risk of hypoglycaemia with degludec versus glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial. Diabetologia.
  10. 10.
    European Medicines Agency. Guideline on multiplicity issues in clinical trials. 2016. Available from Accessed 15 November 2019
  11. 11.
    Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B (2019) Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 567(7748):305–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ioannidis JPA (2019) The importance of predefined rules and prespecified statistical analyses. Do not abandon significance. JAMA 312(21):2067–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heise T, Nørskov M, Nosek L, Kaplan K, Famulla S, Haahr HL (2017) Insulin degludec: lower day-to-day and within-day variability in pharmacodynamic response compared with insulin glargine 300 U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 19(7):1032–1039. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korsatko S, Deller S, Koehler G et al (2013) A comparison of the steady-state pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of 100 and 200 U/mL formulations of ultra-long-acting insulin degludec. Clin Drug Investig 33(7):515–521. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bailey TS, Pettus J, Roussel R et al (2018) Morning administration of 0.4U/kg/day insulin glargine 300U/mL provides less fluctuating 24-hour pharmacodynamics and more even pharmacokinetic profiles compared with insulin degludec 100U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab 44(1):15–21. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenstock J, Cheng A, Ritzel R et al (2018) 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 41(10):2147–2154. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tibaldi J, Hadley-Brown M, Liebl A et al (2019) A comparative effectiveness study of degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 21:1001–1009Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sullivan SD, Nicholls CJ, Gupta RA et al (2019) Comparable glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes after initiating insulin glargine 300 units/mL or insulin degludec: the DELIVER Naïve D real-world study. Diabetes Obes Metab 21(9):2123–2132. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Demircik F, Kirsch V, Ramljak S, Vogg M, Pfützner AH, Pfützner A (2019) Laboratory evaluation of linearity, repeatability, and hematocrit interference with an internet-enabled blood glucose meter. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(3):514–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfützner A, Demircik F, Kirsch V et al (2019) System accuracy assessment of a blood glucose meter with wireless internet access associated with unusual hypoglycemia patterns in clinical trials. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(3):507–513. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Philis-Tsimikas A, Stratton I, Nørgård Troelsen L, Anker Bak B, Leiter LA (2019) Efficacy and safety of degludec compared to glargine 300 units/ml in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes: trial protocol amendment (NCT03078478). J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(3):498–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klonoff DC (2019) Postmarket surveillance of blood glucose monitor systems is needed for safety of subjects and accurate determination of effectiveness in clinical trials of diabetes drugs and devices. J Diabetes Sci Technol 13(3):419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klonoff DC, Parkes JL, Kovatchev BP et al (2018) Investigation of the accuracy of 18 marketed blood glucose monitors. Diabetes Care 41(8):1681–1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ekhlaspour L, Mondesir D, Lautsch N et al (2017) Comparative accuracy of 17 point-of-care glucose meters. J Diabetes Sci Technol 11(3):558–566. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T et al (2005) Psychosocial problems and barriers to improved diabetes management: results of the Cross-National Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) study. Diabet Med 22(10):1379–1385. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bosi E, Scavini M, Ceriello A et al (2013) Intensive structured self-monitoring of blood glucose and glycemic control in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes: the PRISMA randomized trial. Diabetes Care 36(10):2887–2894. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, Section of DiabetesUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations