The Effect of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 on Glucose Metrics Recorded During Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People With Type 1 Diabetes and Recurrent Nocturnal Severe Hypoglycemia

Abstract

Aim: Comparing continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-recorded metrics during treatment with insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar-100) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycemia. Materials and methods: This is a multicenter, two-year, randomized, crossover trial, including 149 adults with T1D and minimum one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycemia within the last two years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to treatment with IDeg or IGlar-100 and given the option of six days of blinded CGM twice during each treatment. CGM traces were reviewed for the percentage of time-within-target glucose range (TIR), time-below-range (TBR), time-above-range (TAR), and coefficient of variation (CV). Results: Seventy-four participants were included in the analysis. Differences between treatments were greatest during the night (23:00-06:59). Treatment with IGlar-100 resulted in 54.0% vs 49.0% with IDeg TIR (70-180 mg/dL) (estimated treatment difference [ETD]: –4.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –9.1, –0.0, P = .049). TBR was lower with IDeg at level 1 (54-69 mg/dL) (ETD: –1.7% [95% CI: –2.9, –0.5], P < .05) and level 2 (<54 mg/dL) (ETD: –1.3% [95% CI: –2.1, –0.5], P = .001). TAR was higher with IDeg compared with IGlar-100 at level 1 (181-250 mg/dL) (ETD: 4.0% [95% CI: 0.8, 7.3], P < .05) and level 2 (> 250 mg/dL) (ETD: 4.0% [95% CI: 0.8, 7.2], P < .05). The mean CV was lower with IDeg than that with IGlar-100 (ETD: –3.4% [95% CI: –5.6, –1.2], P < .05). Conclusion: For people with T1D suffering from recurrent nocturnal severe hypoglycemia, treatment with IDeg, compared with IGlar-100, results in a lower TBR and CV during the night at the expense of more TAR.