Conget Ignacio, Mangas Miguel Ángel, Morales Cristóbal, Caro Juan, Giménez Margarita, Borrell Mireia, Delgado Elías
Hospital Clínic, C/de Villarroel, 170, 08036, Barcelona, Spain.
Diabetes Unit, Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, IDF Centre of Excellence in Diabetes Care, ICMDM.IDIBAPS, Hospital Clínic i Universitari, Barcelona, Spain.
Diabetes Ther. 2021 Nov;12(11):2993-3009. doi: 10.1007/s13300-021-01153-4. Epub 2021 Oct 2.
Data regarding efficacy of second-generation basal insulins (BI) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) come from clinical trials. We evaluated the effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Gla-300) compared to insulin degludec 100 U/ml (IDeg-100) in terms of percentage of time in range (TIR); 70-180 mg/dl was obtained from CGM in sub-optimally controlled patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in routine clinical practice.
This observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study included patients with T1D (> 3 years diabetes duration, HbA ≥ 7.5%) who had switched from first-generation BI to Gla-300/IDeg-100 within the past 24 months according to physician discretion. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained from clinical records and during study visit, and CGM data were collected prior to the visit.
One hundred ninety-nine people with T1D were included [42.6 ± 13.4 (mean ± SD) years, 18.4 ± 10.4 years diabetes duration]; 104 received Gla-300, 95 IDeg-100. TIR 70-180 throughout whole day was similar in both groups, 52.4 ± 14.0 vs. 49.3 ± 13.9% Gla-300/IDeg-100, respectively. At night, TIR 70-180 and TIR 70-140 were significantly higher in the Gla-300 group compared to the IDeg-100 (52.4 vs. 46.2 and 31.8 vs. 26.9%, respectively, p = 0.0209 and p = 0.0182), and time above range (180) was significantly lower in the Gla-300 group (40.1% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.0199). Additional CGM glucometric data were comparable in both groups. Patient treatment satisfaction score assessed through the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) was high and similar for both insulins.
This real-world study shows the effectiveness and safety of Gla-300 are more similar to than different from IDeg-100, with a slightly better nocturnal glucose profile, in sub-optimally controlled T1D patients switching from a first-generation BI.
关于使用持续葡萄糖监测(CGM)的第二代基础胰岛素(BI)疗效的数据来自临床试验。我们在常规临床实践中,针对血糖控制欠佳的1型糖尿病(T1D)患者,通过CGM获取70 - 180mg/dl血糖范围时间(TIR)的百分比,比较了300U/ml甘精胰岛素(Gla - 300)与100U/ml德谷胰岛素(IDeg - 100)的有效性。
这项观察性、多中心、横断面研究纳入了T1D患者(糖尿病病程>3年,糖化血红蛋白≥7.5%),这些患者在过去24个月内根据医生的判断从第一代BI转换为Gla - 300/IDeg - 100。临床和实验室数据从临床记录和研究访视期间获取,CGM数据在访视前收集。
纳入了199例T1D患者[年龄42.6±13.4(均值±标准差)岁,糖尿病病程18.4±10.4年];104例接受Gla - 300,95例接受IDeg - 100。两组全天70 - 180mg/dl的TIR相似,Gla - 300/IDeg - 100组分别为52.4±14.0%和49.3±13.9%。夜间,Gla - 300组70 - 180mg/dl和70 - 140mg/dl的TIR显著高于IDeg - 100组(分别为52.4%对46.2%和31.8%对26.9%,p = 0.0209和p = 0.0182),且Gla - 300组高于范围(>180mg/dl)的时间显著更低(40.1%对47.2%,p = 0.0199)。两组的其他CGM血糖数据具有可比性。通过糖尿病治疗满意度问卷(DTSQ)评估的患者治疗满意度得分较高,且两种胰岛素相似。
这项真实世界研究表明,在从第一代BI转换的血糖控制欠佳的T1D患者中,Gla - 300的有效性和安全性与IDeg - 100相比,相似之处多于不同之处,夜间血糖谱略优。