Evaluation of the superiority of insulin glargine as basal insulin replacement by continuous glucose monitoring system

Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

“…However, the rate ratio was statistically significant in favour of insulin glargine (data not shown). Both the relative risk (I 2 = 64%) and rate ratio (I 2 = 83%) estimates demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity that was due at least in part to opposite effects in the studies combining insulins with sulfonylureas, 92,108,109,128 versus those combining insulins with various oral antidiabetic therapies. 131,132,140 The risk and rate for severe hypoglycemia were significantly lower among patients given insulin glargine in the sulfonylurea subgroup, but not in the subgroup in which various oral antidiabetic therapies were used (data not shown).…”

“…For long-acting insulin analogues, we identified 940 citations, of which we reviewed 55 and selected 20. [90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109] A further trial 110 was identified by stakeholders. We thus had a total of 49 randomized controlled trials for the analysis, [90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102] including 28 trials [143][144][145][146] from the original health technology assessment 14 ( Figure 2).…”

Insulin glargine compared to NPH among insulin-naïve, U.S. inner city, ethnic minority type 2 diabetic patients

“…The published literature comparing the efficacy of the long-acting insulin analogue glargine against NPH as a basal insulin (without confounding by prandial insulins) in oral agent-treated type 2 diabetic patients has produced inconsistent results in terms of their relative efficacy; the expectation of more effective hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) control due to the longer action profile of glargine has been demonstrated in a few head-to-head comparison studies [4, 5], but not in most others [6–13]. A meta-analysis of published data indicates that there is no overall benefit in terms of improved glucose control [14], while Fritsche et al .…”

Comparison of glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes on basal insulin and fixed combination oral antidiabetic treatment: results of a pilot study

“…A recent study, under real-life conditions found that the 24-h pharmacodynamic profile of insulin glargine was associated with better CGMS BG profiles with smaller BG excursions during the day compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin [3], and a similar study found that switching from NPH insulin to insulin glargine also resulted in improved CGMS profiles [4]. Diet and exercise are initially recommended to improve glycaemic control; however, over time this strategy is usually insufficient to maintain glycaemic control, necessitating the introduction of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) [5].…”