Scott M Pearson1, Jennifer M Trujillo2. 1. University of Colorado Skaggs, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 12850 East Montview Boulevard, Mail Stop C238. Aurora, CO 80045, USA University of Colorado, 12850 East Montview Boulevard, CO 80045, USA. 2. University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine whether basal insulin requirements change when patients transition from insulin glargine U-100 (Gla-100) to insulin glargine U-300 (Gla-300) or insulin degludec. METHODS: This study involved subjects seen in the University of Colorado Health Endocrine Clinic who were transitioned from Gla-100 to either Gla-300 (n = 95) or insulin degludec (n = 39). The primary outcome was the difference between baseline Gla-100 dose and dose of Gla-300 or insulin degludec prescribed after first follow-up visit within 1-12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in glycemic control and empiric dose conversion from Gla-100 to Gla-300 or insulin degludec on the day of transition. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated changes in insulin doses, and paired t tests assessed changes in glycemic control using GraphPad statistical software. RESULTS: Median daily basal insulin dose increased for individuals transitioned from Gla-100 to Gla-300 from 30 [19-60 interquartile range (IQR)] units at baseline to 34.5 (19-70 IQR) units after follow up (p = 0.01). For patients transitioned to insulin degludec, dose changes from baseline to follow up were not significantly different (p = 0.56). At the time of transition, the prescribed dose of Gla-300 or insulin degludec did not significantly differ from the previous dose of Gla-100 (p = 0.73 and 0.28, respectively), indicating that empiric dose adjustments were not routinely prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who transitioned from Gla-100 to Gla-300 had increased basal insulin requirements between visits, while basal insulin requirements for those transitioned from Gla-100 to insulin degludec were not significantly different.
BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine whether basal insulin requirements change when patients transition from insulin glargine U-100 (Gla-100) to insulin glargine U-300 (Gla-300) or insulin degludec. METHODS: This study involved subjects seen in the University of Colorado Health Endocrine Clinic who were transitioned from Gla-100 to either Gla-300 (n = 95) or insulin degludec (n = 39). The primary outcome was the difference between baseline Gla-100 dose and dose of Gla-300 or insulin degludec prescribed after first follow-up visit within 1-12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in glycemic control and empiric dose conversion from Gla-100 to Gla-300 or insulin degludec on the day of transition. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated changes in insulin doses, and paired t tests assessed changes in glycemic control using GraphPad statistical software. RESULTS: Median daily basal insulin dose increased for individuals transitioned from Gla-100 to Gla-300 from 30 [19-60 interquartile range (IQR)] units at baseline to 34.5 (19-70 IQR) units after follow up (p = 0.01). For patients transitioned to insulin degludec, dose changes from baseline to follow up were not significantly different (p = 0.56). At the time of transition, the prescribed dose of Gla-300 or insulin degludec did not significantly differ from the previous dose of Gla-100 (p = 0.73 and 0.28, respectively), indicating that empiric dose adjustments were not routinely prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who transitioned from Gla-100 to Gla-300 had increased basal insulin requirements between visits, while basal insulin requirements for those transitioned from Gla-100 to insulin degludec were not significantly different.
Authors: Philip D Home; Richard M Bergenstal; Geremia B Bolli; Monika Ziemen; Maria Rojeski; Melanie Espinasse; Matthew C Riddle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: R Ritzel; R Roussel; G B Bolli; L Vinet; C Brulle-Wohlhueter; S Glezer; H Yki-Järvinen Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: R E Ratner; S C L Gough; C Mathieu; S Del Prato; B Bode; H Mersebach; L Endahl; B Zinman Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: B W Bode; J B Buse; M Fisher; S K Garg; M Marre; L Merker; E Renard; D L Russell-Jones; C T Hansen; A Rana; S R Heller Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Changyu Pan; Jorge L Gross; Wenying Yang; Xiaofeng Lv; Li Sun; Charlotte Thim Hansen; Hongfei Xu; Robert Wagner Journal: Drugs R D Date: 2016-06
Authors: Matthew C Riddle; Geremia B Bolli; Philip D Home; Richard M Bergenstal; Monika Ziemen; Isabel Muehlen-Bartmer; Marek Wardecki; Laetitia Vinet; Nathalie Jeandidier; Hannele Yki-Järvinen Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: M Matsuhisa; M Koyama; X Cheng; Y Takahashi; M C Riddle; G B Bolli; T Hirose Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Y Terauchi; M Koyama; X Cheng; Y Takahashi; M C Riddle; G B Bolli; T Hirose Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Samantha C Puglisi; Alexis L Mackiewicz; Amir Ardeshir; Laura M Garzel; Kari L Christe Journal: Comp Med Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 0.982