OBJECTIVETo determine whether glargine is noninferior to detemir regarding the percentage of patients reaching A1C <7% without symptomatic hypoglycemia ≤3.1 mmol/l.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn this 24-week trial, 973 insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients on stable oral glucose-lowering drugs with A1C 7.0–10.5% were randomized to glargine once daily or detemir twice daily. Insulin doses were systematically titrated.RESULTS27.5 and 25.6% of patients reached the primary outcome with glargine and detemir, respectively, demonstrating the noninferiority of glargine. Improvements in A1C were −1.46 ± 1.09% for glargine and −1.54 ± 1.11% for detemir (P = 0.149), with similar proportions of patients achieving A1C <7% (P = 0.254) but more detemir-treated patients reaching A1C <6.5% (P = 0.017). Hypoglycemia risk was similar. Weight gain was higher for glargine (difference: 0.77 kg, P < 0.001). Glargine doses were lower than detemir doses: 43.5 ± 29.0 vs. 76.5 ± 50.5 units/day (P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients, glargine reached similar control as detemir, with more weight gain, but required significantly lower doses.

No abstract

Our analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

There is no conclusive evidence for a large increase in the risk of mood disorders associated with migration.

Glucose clamp studies assessing the time-action profile of long-acting insulin analogues have reported conflicting results. In an attempt to reconcile the data, we organised an expert meeting of four leading European clamp groups, during which consensus was reached on some but not all points discussed. In this paper, which reflects our personal views only, we aim to provide guidance for readers and reviewers on the interpretation of this type of clamp study and to clarify its inherent limitations.Glucose clamp studies are either performed manually or using an automated procedure, but differences in clamp methodology hardly seem a satisfactory explanation for the conflicting results. (Un)conscious investigator-related bias, especially during manual studies, cannot be ruled out, despite attempts at blinding the study insulin during the clamp.The duration of action of study insulins is influenced by many factors, such as glucose and insulin levels prior to injection, endogenous insulin secretion, insulin dose, definitions used for onset and end of action, and insulin sensitivity (which is influenced by the necessity of fasting during the clamp). These factors limit the translation of clamp study results into daily practice.Because of the inherent limitations of the glucose clamp technique and the lack of reproducibility of the outcomes, its results should be regarded as no more than an indication of the clinical action profile of long-acting insulin preparations.