Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine on glycemic control and daily fasting blood glucose variability in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: I’D GOT trial

Aso, Yoshimasa; Suzuki, Kunihiro; Chiba, Yasuo; Sato, Minoru; Fujita, Nobuya; Takada, Yoshihisa; Murano, Shunichi; Kuroda, Hiromasa

doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2017.06.007

Cited by 25 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the reported variability was significantly smaller with IDeg than with IGla [33][34][35]. Following a treat-to-target trial in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes, Aso et al have reported that the CV values 24 weeks after starting insulin treatment were significantly smaller in the IDeg group than in the IGla group [36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 and insulin glargine U100 in combination with meal-time bolus insulin in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, randomized controlled study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The short-term efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 (IDeg) in patients with type 2 diabetes have not been reported widely. We compared insulin IDeg and insulin glargine U100 (IGla) for glycemic control and glucose variability in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes. In an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 74 patients were randomly assigned to either the IDeg (36 patients) or IGla (38 patients) group and were administered with basal-bolus therapy during hospitalization. Following the start of the treatment, on day 11, glucose variability was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring. A fasting blood glucose level of 110 mg/dL and 2-hour postprandial blood glucose level of 180 mg/dL throughout at least one day during the observation period were achieved in 31.3% (10/32) and 30.6% (11/36) of the patients in the IDeg and IGla groups, respectively. The 6-point self-monitoring of blood glucose profiles showed a significant difference between the two groups. On day 7, the intra-day variation was larger in the IDeg group than in the IGla group. The incidence of hypoglycemia or glucose variability was comparable in the two groups. This study suggests that short-term efficacy and safety of IDeg and IGla in patients with type 2 diabetes during the initial phase of basal-bolus therapy were comparable, and these results can help in deciding which treatment to opt for.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 and insulin glargine U100 in combination with meal-time bolus insulin in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, randomized controlled study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The same authors independently extracted data from eligible studies including the name of the first author and publication year, location and duration, sample size, inclusion criteria, study arms and participants, and cotreatments. Fasting blood glucose (FBG) was entitled as the primary outcome, in line with other studies [20][21][22]. Secondary outcomes were glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); body mass index (BMI); lipid profiles including triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL); hematological indexes including hematocrit and platelet count; and systematic inflammatory level expressed as the C-reactive protein (CRP) level.…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 59%

The Effect of Diacerein on Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis

Guo

Hong-ya³

et al. 2020

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims. To figure out the effect of diacerein supplementation on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods. An electronic search was processed on Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of diacerein with placebo on T2DM. The primary outcome was fasting blood glucose (FBG). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to test the reliability of this pooled outcome. Secondary outcomes were glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), lipid profiles, hematological indexes including hematocrit and platelet count, and systematic inflammatory level expressed as a C-reactive protein (CRP) level. Safety outcome was the rate of complications. The difference in continuous data was measured by mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), while the difference of dichotomous data was calculated by relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. A two-tailed P<0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. Results. Five RCTs with 278 participants were included. Compared with control, diacerein provided significant improvement on FBG (MD -0.52; 95% CI (-0.89~-0.14); P=0.007), but TSA showed that this positive effect required more support. Besides, diacerein also significantly improved HbA1c (MD -0.71; 95% CI (-1.07~-0.36); P<0.001), BMI (MD -0.40; 95% CI (-0.49~-0.31); P<0.001), and CRP level (MD -1.49; 95% CI (-2.78~-0.19); P=0.02). No superiority was noted in favor of either treatment regarding lipid profiles or hematological indexes. Among all complications, diacerein caused significantly more gastrointestinal syndromes (RR 1.39; 95% CI (1.08~1.77); P=0.009). Conclusion. Based on the current analysis, diacerein as an add-on treatment provided better glycemic control for T2DM but this benefit requires more verification. Compared with control, additional diacerein also lowered body weight and CRP level in T2DM, but increased the rate of gastrointestinal syndromes.

show abstract

“…More evidence was available comparing degludec and glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes, with 10 good or fair‐quality trials in a total of >13 000 adult patients treated for 16 weeks to 2 years . An additional trial in 44 patients was rated poor quality . Over half of all patients in the 10 better quality trials were enrolled in the DEVOTE trial (N = 7637), mandated by the FDA to address concerns about cardiovascular harms raised during development of degludec…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] An additional trial in 44 patients was rated poor quality. 30 Over half of all patients in the 10 better quality trials were enrolled in the DEVOTE trial (N = 7637), 27 see Appendix S1, Appendix F, Figure F-1). [20][21][22][23][24]26,28 The DEVOTE 27 Appendix F, Figure F-5).…”

Section: Degludec Versus Glarginementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long‐acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Holmes

Crabtree

McDonagh

2019

Diabetes Obesity Metabolism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To review evidence comparing benefits and harms of long-acting insulins in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes.Methods: MEDLINE and two Cochrane databases were searched during February 2018. Two authors selected studies meeting inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. Comparative studies of adult or paediatric patients with diabetes treated with insulin degludec, detemir or glargine were included. Meta-analysis was used to combine results of similar studies, and the I 2 statistic calculated to assess statistical heterogeneity.Results: Of 2534 citations reviewed, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences in HbA1c were seen between any two insulins or formulations. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than with glargine, including nocturnal hypoglycaemia in type 1 (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.81) and type 2 diabetes (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.82), and severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96). Patients with type 2 diabetes had higher rates of withdrawal because of adverse events when treated with detemir compared with glargine (relative risk 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.3). Adults taking detemir gained about 1 kg less body weight than those taking degludec (type 1) or glargine (type 2).Conclusions: No differences in glycaemic control were seen between insulin degludec, detemir and glargine. Hypoglycaemia was less probable with degludec than glargine, and patients taking detemir gained less body weight than those given degludec or glargine. In type 2 diabetes, withdrawals as a result of adverse events were more probable with detemir than glargine. K E Y W O R D Sbasal insulin, glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, systematic review, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes

show abstract

Effect of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine on glycemic control and daily fasting blood glucose variability in insulin-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: I’D GOT trial

Cited by 25 publications

References 19 publications

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 and insulin glargine U100 in combination with meal-time bolus insulin in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, randomized controlled study

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec U100 and insulin glargine U100 in combination with meal-time bolus insulin in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label, randomized controlled study

The Effect of Diacerein on Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis

Comparative effectiveness and harms of long‐acting insulins for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About