BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To compare switching from NPH insulin (NPH) to insulin glargine (glargine) with continuing NPH for changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) in patients with Type 1 diabetes on basal-bolus therapy with insulin lispro as bolus insulin. Secondary objectives included self-monitoring blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose (MDBG) and mean amplitude glucose excursion (MAGE) values alongside changes in HbA(1c) and safety profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a 30-week, parallel, open-label, multicentre study. Seven-point profiles were used to calculate MDBG and MAGE. Hypoglycaemia and adverse events were recorded by participants. FBG improved significantly with both glargine (baseline-endpoint change: -28.0 mg/dL; 95% CI: -37.3, -18.7 mg/dL; p<0.001) and NPH (-9.8 mg/dL; 95% CI: -19.1, -0.5 mg/dL; p=0.0374). The improvement was significantly greater with glargine than NPH (mean difference: -18.2 mg/dL; 95% CI: -31.3, -5.2 mg/dL; p=0.0064). MDBG (-10.1 mg/dL; 95% CI: -18.1, -2.1 mg/dL; p=0.0126) and MAGE (-20.0 mg/dL; 95% CI: -34.5, -5.9 mg/dL; p=0.0056) decreased significantly with glargine, but not NPH although endpoint values were no different with the two insulins. Baseline to endpoint change in HbA(1c) was similar (-0.56 vs -0.56%) with no differences at endpoint. Overall hypoglycaemia was no different, but glargine reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia ("serious episodes" with BG < 42 mg/dl, p=0.006) whereas NPH did not (p=0.123), although endpoint values were no different. CONCLUSION: Switching from NPH to glargine is well tolerated and results into lower FBG, and lower glucose variability while reducing nocturnal hypoglycaemia. These data provide a rationale for more aggressive titration to target with glargine in Type 1 diabetes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To compare switching from NPH insulin (NPH) to insulin glargine (glargine) with continuing NPH for changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) in patients with Type 1 diabetes on basal-bolus therapy with insulin lispro as bolus insulin. Secondary objectives included self-monitoring blood glucose, mean daily blood glucose (MDBG) and mean amplitude glucose excursion (MAGE) values alongside changes in HbA(1c) and safety profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a 30-week, parallel, open-label, multicentre study. Seven-point profiles were used to calculate MDBG and MAGE. Hypoglycaemia and adverse events were recorded by participants. FBG improved significantly with both glargine (baseline-endpoint change: -28.0 mg/dL; 95% CI: -37.3, -18.7 mg/dL; p<0.001) and NPH (-9.8 mg/dL; 95% CI: -19.1, -0.5 mg/dL; p=0.0374). The improvement was significantly greater with glargine than NPH (mean difference: -18.2 mg/dL; 95% CI: -31.3, -5.2 mg/dL; p=0.0064). MDBG (-10.1 mg/dL; 95% CI: -18.1, -2.1 mg/dL; p=0.0126) and MAGE (-20.0 mg/dL; 95% CI: -34.5, -5.9 mg/dL; p=0.0056) decreased significantly with glargine, but not NPH although endpoint values were no different with the two insulins. Baseline to endpoint change in HbA(1c) was similar (-0.56 vs -0.56%) with no differences at endpoint. Overall hypoglycaemia was no different, but glargine reduced nocturnal hypoglycaemia ("serious episodes" with BG < 42 mg/dl, p=0.006) whereas NPH did not (p=0.123), although endpoint values were no different. CONCLUSION: Switching from NPH to glargine is well tolerated and results into lower FBG, and lower glucose variability while reducing nocturnal hypoglycaemia. These data provide a rationale for more aggressive titration to target with glargine in Type 1 diabetes.
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Huda M Ashoor; Jesmin Antony; Joseph Beyene; Areti Angeliki Veroniki; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Alana Harrington; Charlotte Wilson; Sophia Tsouros; Charlene Soobiah; Catherine H Yu; Brian Hutton; Jeffrey S Hoch; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; David Moher; Sumit R Majumdar; Sharon E Straus Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-10-01
Authors: Fernanda O Laranjeira; Keitty R C de Andrade; Ana C M G Figueiredo; Everton N Silva; Mauricio G Pereira Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240