Effectiveness of insulin glargine U-300 versus insulin glargine U-100 on nocturnal hypoglycemia and glycemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
To assess the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 ui/ml (Gla-300) compared with insulin glargine 100 ui/ml (Gla-100) on reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia and improving glycemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients.
We systematically searched in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until July 4th, 2018. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017080134). We included randomized clinical trials comparing Gla-300 versus Gla-100 reporting the rate ratio or number of events of nocturnal hypoglycemia and HbA1c levels percentage or mmol/mol−1. The main outcome was the incidence rate ratio (RR) of nocturnal hypoglycemia events. The heterogeneity of results across studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. Fixed- and random-effect models were used to estimate pooled RRs.
Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 3977 adult patients. Compared with Gla-100, the use of Gla-300 reduced confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia [RR = 0.81 (0.69, 0.95)] and clinically significant nocturnal hypoglycemia [RR = 0.75 (0.63, 0.91)]. Reductions in clinically significant nocturnal hypoglycemia events [RR = 0.64 (0.42, 0.97)] in type 1 diabetes patients were found. A small decrease in HbA1c levels in favor of Gla-300 in the pooled sample was identified [ES = − 0.08 (95% CI − 0.14, − 0.01)].
The best current evidence indicates that Gla-300 reduces the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia with slight improvements in glycemic control compared with Gla-100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes adult patients.
KeywordsType 2 diabetes Type 1 diabetes Insulin glargine Hypoglycemia HbA1c; meta-analysis
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
AD-F declares that she has no conflict of interest. IC-R declares that he has no conflict of interest. JM-F declares that he has no conflict of interest. DP-C declares that she has no conflict of interest. MG-M declares that she has no conflict of interest. VM-V declares that he has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 7.Becker RHA, Dahmen R, Bergmann K, Lehmann A, Jax T, Heise T (2015) New insulin glargine 300 Units.mL(-1) provides a more even activity profile and prolonged glycemic control at steady state compared with insulin glargine 100 Units.mL(-1). Diabetes Care 38:637–643Google Scholar
- 9.Brown MA, Davis CS, Fleming LW, Fleming JW (2016) The role of Toujeo®, insulin glargine U-300, in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract 28:503–509Google Scholar
- 12.Higgins J, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 5.1.0. In. The Cochrane Collaboration. (handbook.cochrane.org)Google Scholar
- 15.Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719–748Google Scholar
- 16.Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 20.Matsuhisa M, Koyama M, Cheng X et al (2016) Sustained glycaemic control and less nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL compared with glargine 100 U/mL in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes (EDITION JP 1 randomised 12-month trial including 6-month extension). Diabetes Res Clin Pract 122:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Jinnouchi H, Koyama M, Amano A et al (2015) Continuous glucose monitoring during basal-bolus therapy using insulin glargine 300 U mL(-1) and glargine 100 U mL(-1) in Japanese people with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a crossover pilot study. Diabetes Therapy 6:143–152Google Scholar
- 23.Terauchi Y, Koyama M, Cheng X et al (2017) Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL compared with glargine 100 U/mL in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin plus oral anti-hyperglycaemic drugs (EDITION JP 2 randomised 12-month trial including 6-month extension). Diabetes Metab 43:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Yki-Jarvinen H, Bergenstal RM, Bolli GB et al (2015) Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs: the EDITION 2 randomized 12-month trial including 6-month extension. Diabetes Obes Metab 17:1142–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Riddle MC, Yki-Jarvinen H, Bolli GB et al (2015) One-year sustained glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia with new insulin glargine 300 U/ml compared with 100 U/ml in people with type 2 diabetes using basal plus meal-time insulin: the EDITION 1 12-month randomized trial, including 6-month extension. Diabetes Obes Metab 17:835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Ritzel R, Roussel R, Giaccari A, Vora J, Brulle-Wohlhueter C, Yki-Järvinen H (2018) Better glycaemic control and less hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs glargine 100 U/mL: 1-year patient-level meta-analysis of the EDITION clinical studies in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 20:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Gupta S, Wang H, Skolnik N et al (2018) Treatment dosing patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes starting or switching to treatment with insulin glargine (300 units per milliliter) in a real-world setting: a retrospective observational study. Adv Ther 35:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar