Advertisement

Acta Diabetologica

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 637–639 | Cite as

Switching from Glargine to Degludec is not associated with an overt change in glucose control in a cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes: a CGM analysis

  • Laura Affinito Bonabello
  • Davide Maggi
  • Samuele Fiorini
  • Veronica Tozzo
  • Renzo Cordera
Short Communication
  • 485 Downloads

Introduction

After DCCT, intensive multiple daily insulin injections protocol became the standard therapy for patients with T1DM intended to maintain a lower HbA1c without hypoglycemia and thus to decrease the risk of microvascular complications. Design and production of new basal insulin analogs with lower risk of hypoglycemia was the next challenge. The switch from NPH to the basal insulin analog Glargine represented a major clinical advantage allowing to obtain a better and safer glucose control. Degludec is a new basal insulin analog with longer half-life and lower variability than Glargine [1]. Despite these differences, clinical trials comparing Glargine and Degludec in patients with T1DM and T2DM have failed to show a clear clinical advantage of Degludec in both efficacy and safety. A statistically significant lower number of hypoglycemic events, associated with Degludec versus Glargine, have been shown only in patients at high risk of hypoglycemia and intensively treated...

Keywords

Degludec Glargine Continuous glucose monitoring Hypoglycemia 

Abbreviations

CGM

Continuous glucose monitoring

NPH

Neutral protamine hagedorn

T1DM

Type 1 diabetes mellitus

T2DM

Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AUC

Area under curve

CONGA

Continuous overlapping net glycemic action

BGR

Blood glucose rate

LBGI

Low Blood Glucose Index

HBGI

High Blood Glucose Index

MAGE

Mean amplitude glycemic excursion

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2008.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Yamamoto C, Miyoshi H, Fujiwara Y et al (2016) Degludec is superior to Glargine in terms of daily glycemic variability in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Endocr J 63(1):53–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siegmund T, Tentolouris N, Knudsen ST et al (2017) A European multicentre retrospective non interventional study (EU-TREAT) of the effectiveness of insulin Degludec after switching basal insulin in a population with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13149 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lane W, Bailey TS, Gerety G et al (2017) Effect of insulin Degludec vs insulin Glargine U100 on hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: the SWITCH 1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318(1):33–44CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Galasso S, Facchinetti A, Bonora BM et al (2016) Switching from twice-daily Glargine or detemir to once-daily Degludec improves glucose control in type 1 diabetes. An observational study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 26(12):1112–1119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tosaka Y, Kanazawa A, Ikeda F et al (2015) Switching from twice-daily basal insulin injections to once-daily insulin Degludec injection for basal-bolus insulin regimen in japanese patients with type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. Int J Endocrinol 2015:176261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine (DIMI)University of Genova and Ospedale Policlinico San MartinoGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Informatics, Bioengineering, Robotics and Systems EngineeringUniversity of GenovaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations