Thrice-Weekly Insulin Degludec Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naïve Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
British journal of hospital medicine Pub Date : 2025-07-25 Epub Date: 2025-07-04 DOI:10.12968/hmed.2024.0716
A B M Kamrul-Hasan, Sanja Borozan, Cornelius J Fernandez, Deep Dutta, Lakshmi Nagendra, Joseph M Pappachan
{"title":"Thrice-Weekly Insulin Degludec Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naïve Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"A B M Kamrul-Hasan, Sanja Borozan, Cornelius J Fernandez, Deep Dutta, Lakshmi Nagendra, Joseph M Pappachan","doi":"10.12968/hmed.2024.0716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aims/Background</b> Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg 3TW) versus once-daily insulin glargine (IGlar OD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are scarce and not uniform. Moreover, no systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) is available for such a comparison. This SRM aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of IDeg 3TW versus IGlar OD in the available RCTs in T2DM. <b>Methods</b> Electronic databases and registers, which include MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched for RCTs conducted among T2DM subjects with IDeg 3TW as intervention and IGlar OD as control from inception to 30 July 2024. The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction from baseline; secondary outcomes were the changes in other glycemic parameters and adverse events (AEs). RevMan web was used to conduct meta-analysis using random-effects models. Outcomes were presented as mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). <b>Results</b> Three RCTs (N = 1171) with study durations ranging from 16-26 weeks and minimal risk of bias were included. IDeg 3TW was less effective than IGlar OD in HbA1c reduction (MD 0.27%, 95% CI [0.14, 0.39], <i>p</i> < 0.0001), reduction in mean nine-point self-monitored capillary blood glucose profile (MD 0.45 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.22, 0.67], <i>p</i> < 0.0001), and HbA1c reduction <7% (OR 0.69, 95% [0.53, 0.89], <i>p</i> = 0.005). IDeg 3TW outperformed IGlar OD regarding the mean daily insulin dose (MD -0.07 U, 95% CI [-0.13, -0.01], <i>p</i> = 0.02). However, both groups achieved comparable fasting plasma glucose reduction (MD 0.37 mmol/L, 95% [-0.19, 0.93], <i>p =</i> 0.19), changes in body weight (MD 0.04 kg, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.55], <i>p =</i> 0.86), and overall physical (MD 0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.04], <i>p</i> = 0.62) and mental health scores (MD -0.02, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.01], <i>p</i> = 0.97). The risks for confirmed hypoglycemia (RR 1.16, 95% CI [0.83, 1.62], <i>p</i> = 0.38), nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 1.18, 95% CI [0.49, 2.84], <i>p</i> = 0.71), any AEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI [0.84, 1.30], <i>p</i> = 0.71), serious AEs (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.77, 2.65], <i>p</i> = 0.25), and injection-site reactions (RR 1.29, 95% CI [0.56, 2.96], <i>p</i> = 0.55) were identical in the two groups. <b>Conclusion</b> In short-term follow-up, IDeg 3TW was less effective than IGlar OD in glycaemic control; however, their safety profile was comparable. Larger multicenter RCTs comparing the overall benefit-risk ratio are necessary for appropriate clinical practice decisions. <b>Systematic Review Registeration</b> PROSPERO: CRD42024593493.</p>","PeriodicalId":9256,"journal":{"name":"British journal of hospital medicine","volume":"86 7","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2024.0716","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims/Background Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg 3TW) versus once-daily insulin glargine (IGlar OD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are scarce and not uniform. Moreover, no systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) is available for such a comparison. This SRM aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of IDeg 3TW versus IGlar OD in the available RCTs in T2DM. Methods Electronic databases and registers, which include MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched for RCTs conducted among T2DM subjects with IDeg 3TW as intervention and IGlar OD as control from inception to 30 July 2024. The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction from baseline; secondary outcomes were the changes in other glycemic parameters and adverse events (AEs). RevMan web was used to conduct meta-analysis using random-effects models. Outcomes were presented as mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Three RCTs (N = 1171) with study durations ranging from 16-26 weeks and minimal risk of bias were included. IDeg 3TW was less effective than IGlar OD in HbA1c reduction (MD 0.27%, 95% CI [0.14, 0.39], p < 0.0001), reduction in mean nine-point self-monitored capillary blood glucose profile (MD 0.45 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.22, 0.67], p < 0.0001), and HbA1c reduction <7% (OR 0.69, 95% [0.53, 0.89], p = 0.005). IDeg 3TW outperformed IGlar OD regarding the mean daily insulin dose (MD -0.07 U, 95% CI [-0.13, -0.01], p = 0.02). However, both groups achieved comparable fasting plasma glucose reduction (MD 0.37 mmol/L, 95% [-0.19, 0.93], p = 0.19), changes in body weight (MD 0.04 kg, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.55], p = 0.86), and overall physical (MD 0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.04], p = 0.62) and mental health scores (MD -0.02, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.01], p = 0.97). The risks for confirmed hypoglycemia (RR 1.16, 95% CI [0.83, 1.62], p = 0.38), nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 1.18, 95% CI [0.49, 2.84], p = 0.71), any AEs (RR 1.04, 95% CI [0.84, 1.30], p = 0.71), serious AEs (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.77, 2.65], p = 0.25), and injection-site reactions (RR 1.29, 95% CI [0.56, 2.96], p = 0.55) were identical in the two groups. Conclusion In short-term follow-up, IDeg 3TW was less effective than IGlar OD in glycaemic control; however, their safety profile was comparable. Larger multicenter RCTs comparing the overall benefit-risk ratio are necessary for appropriate clinical practice decisions. Systematic Review Registeration PROSPERO: CRD42024593493.

Insulin-Naïve 2型糖尿病患者每周使用三次去谷糖胰岛素与每天使用一次甘精胰岛素:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的/背景:比较2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者每周使用3次去谷糖胰岛素(IDeg 3TW)与每天使用1次甘精胰岛素(IGlar OD)的疗效和安全性的随机对照试验(rct)数据很少且不统一。此外,没有系统评价和荟萃分析(SRM)可用于这样的比较。本SRM旨在比较现有T2DM随机对照试验中IDeg 3TW与IGlar OD的有效性和安全性。方法检索MEDLINE(通过PubMed)、Scopus、Cochrane Central Register和ClinicalTrials.gov等电子数据库和注册库,检索自成立至2024年7月30日在以IDeg 3TW为干预、IGlar OD为对照的T2DM受试者中进行的随机对照试验。主要结局是糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)较基线降低;次要结局是其他血糖参数的变化和不良事件(ae)。采用RevMan web进行meta分析,采用随机效应模型。结果以95%置信区间(ci)的平均差异(MD)、优势比(OR)或风险比(RR)表示。结果纳入3项rct (N = 1171),研究持续时间为16-26周,偏倚风险最小。IDeg 3TW在降低HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI [0.14, 0.39], p < 0.0001)、降低平均9点自我监测毛细血管血糖谱(MD 0.45 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.22, 0.67], p < 0.0001)和降低HbA1c方面的效果不如IGlar OD。IDeg 3TW在平均每日胰岛素剂量方面优于IGlar OD (MD为-0.07 U, 95% CI [-0.13, -0.01], p = 0.02)。然而,两组的空腹血糖降低(MD为0.37 mmol/L, 95% [-0.19, 0.93], p = 0.19)、体重变化(MD为0.04 kg, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.55], p = 0.86)、整体身体(MD为0.21,95% CI [-0.62, 1.04], p = 0.62)和心理健康评分(MD为-0.02,95% CI [-1.05, 1.01], p = 0.97)均达到了相当水平。两组确诊低血糖(RR 1.16, 95% CI [0.83, 1.62], p = 0.38)、夜间低血糖(RR 1.18, 95% CI [0.49, 2.84], p = 0.71)、任何ae (RR 1.04, 95% CI [0.84, 1.30], p = 0.71)、严重ae (RR 1.43, 95% CI [0.77, 2.65], p = 0.25)和注射部位反应(RR 1.29, 95% CI [0.56, 2.96], p = 0.55)的风险相同。结论在短期随访中,IDeg 3TW的降糖效果不如IGlar OD;然而,它们的安全性是相当的。较大的多中心随机对照试验比较总体获益-风险比对于适当的临床实践决策是必要的。系统评价注册号:CRD42024593493。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British journal of hospital medicine
British journal of hospital medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Hospital Medicine was established in 1966, and is still true to its origins: a monthly, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary review journal for hospital doctors and doctors in training. The journal publishes an authoritative mix of clinical reviews, education and training updates, quality improvement projects and case reports, and book reviews from recognized leaders in the profession. The Core Training for Doctors section provides clinical information in an easily accessible format for doctors in training. British Journal of Hospital Medicine is an invaluable resource for hospital doctors at all stages of their career. The journal is indexed on Medline, CINAHL, the Sociedad Iberoamericana de Información Científica and Scopus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信