Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Advertise | Login 
 
Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
  Users Online: 728 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 784-793

Modern basal insulin analogs: An incomplete story


1 Senior Consultant Endocrinologist, G.D Diabetes Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal; Sun Valley Diabetes Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India
2 Consultant Endocrinologist, Fortis Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Date of Web Publication20-Sep-2014

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh
Flat -1C, 3 Canal Street, Kolkata - 700 014, West Bengal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2230-8210.140239

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

The currently available basal insulin does not completely mimic the endogenous insulin secretion. This has continued to promote the search for ideal basal insulin. The newer basal insulin have primarily focused on increasing the duration of action, reducing variability, and reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia, particularly nocturnal. However, the changing criteria of hypoglycemia within a short span of a few years along with the surprising introduction of major cardiac events as another outcome measure has not only clouded the assessment of basal insulin but has also polarized opinion worldwide about the utility of the newer basal insulin. A critical review of both the pre and post FDA analysis of all the basal insulin in this article attempts to clear some of the confusion surrounding the issues of hypoglycemia and glycemic control. This article also discusses all the trials and meta-analysis done on all the current basal insulin available along with their head-to-head comparison with particular attention to glycemic control and hypoglycemic events including severe and nocturnal hypoglycemia. This in-depth analysis hopes to provide a clear interpretation of the various analyses available in literature at this point of time thereby acting as an excellent guide to the readers in choosing the most appropriate basal insulin for their patient.

Keywords: Basal insulin, degludec, detemir, glargine, glycemic variability, hypoglycemia, modern basal insulin analogs, Neutral Protamine Hagedorn, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes


How to cite this article:
Singh AK, Gangopadhyay KK. Modern basal insulin analogs: An incomplete story. Indian J Endocr Metab 2014;18:784-93

How to cite this URL:
Singh AK, Gangopadhyay KK. Modern basal insulin analogs: An incomplete story. Indian J Endocr Metab [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Dec 1];18:784-93. Available from: https://www.ijem.in/text.asp?2014/18/6/784/140239


   Introduction Top


Basal insulin secretion constitutes approximately 40% of the total insulin secretion over a 24-hour period and inhibits hepatic glycogenolysis, ketogenesis, and gluconeogenesis. [1] Several trials have highlighted the increasing role of basal insulin in the management of diabetes mellitus leading to the search for the ideal basal insulin. [2],[3],[4],[5]

Previously, it was discovered that the duration of action of insulin could be prolonged through addition of zinc and combination with strongly basic proteins (e.g. protamine). The first basal insulin, Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH), originally consisted of insulin and protamine with small amounts of zinc and phenol at neutral pH, but later formulations were produced by adding protamine to recombinantly synthesized human insulin. NPH was originally considered long-acting insulin even though its duration of action was only 12-18 hours. NPH shows a pronounced peak effect, which can increase risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia. [6] It fails to mimic the physiological profile and is associated with excess variability in absorption and action and may need to be administered twice or even thrice daily. [2],[7] A higher level of hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia in particular, remains a major limitation of NPH. Inadequate re-suspension of NPH, which is quite common, may contribute to higher variability and hence, identical doses of subcutaneous insulin do not always lead to the same glycemic effect. [8] Therefore, there was a strong need to develop insulin without such pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) inconsistencies and hence, long-acting (basal) insulin analogs were developed to provide a more physiologic PK/PD profile with longer duration of action, less intra-patient variability, less pronounced peak in time-action profiles, and lesser hypoglycemic risk compared with NPH. [9]

Modern basal analogs such as insulin detemir and insulin glargine both have a longer duration of action and a flatter profile than NPH. Both have a longer duration of action, less intra-patient variability, less pronounced peak in time-action profiles, and decreased hypoglycemic risk than NPH; however, even these insulin analogs do not last for 24 hours in some patients, requiring up to two injections to achieve glycemic control. [6],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14] It is estimated that approximately 40% of type 1 patients still require twice daily injections of long-acting insulin analogs such as glargine, and these patients in particular could benefit from newer basal insulin options with longer time-action profiles. [15],[16]

It would be worthwhile to note that just prolonging the half life of basal insulin may not merely yield a clinical benefit. These lessons can be learnt from the studies with bovine-NPH and ultra-lente insulin. Though both had much longer half life of approximately 36 hours, bovine-NPH had very poor bio-availability requiring very high doses and ultra-lente had a very peculiar property of erratic absorption leading to labile blood glucose swings. Both are no longer available for clinical use and hence, it may be concluded that longer-acting basal insulin may not necessarily be better. Therefore, the need of hour is to have a long-acting insulin (with a duration of action of at least 24 hours) with good biological properties. [17]

Adequate data is now available with the recent publication of phase IIIa studies of newer longer-acting basal insulin analogs including insulin degludec and insulin glargine U-300. Some data are also emerging from phase II studies of yet another newer basal analog called pegylated insulin-lispro [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Evolvement of modern basal insulin analogues

Click here to view


Insulin degludec is a neutral, soluble, ultra-long-acting basal insulin analog with duration of action found to be >42 hour in patients with type 1 diabetes. It has a mean elimination half-life of approximately 25 hours. [18] Steady state is reached in 2-3 days with subcutaneous administration of once-daily insulin degludec [Table 1]. At steady state, there was no day-to-day change in overall exposure for insulin degludec. [19] Within-subject variability of insulin degludec is four times less compared to glargine and in fact, is the least compared to all available basal insulins [14],[20],[21] [Figure 2]. The degradation of insulin degludec is similar to that of human insulin, with all metabolites being inactive. The primary route of elimination of insulin degludec is via degradation at the insulin receptor, which is independent of dose. [20]
Figure 2: Glycemic variability of basal insulin. Within-subject variability in pharmacodynamic endpoints for insulin detemir versus NPH versus glargine and insulin glargine versus degludec in patients with type 1 diabetes undergoing euglycemic clamp trial. The dose administered was 0.4 IU/kg.

Click here to view
Table 1: Summary of the properties of insulin degludec

Click here to view


Comparison of any insulin trial including basal insulin has certain limitations. The most crucial limitation for any insulin trial is its open-label design as they cannot be single-blinded let alone double-blinded. This open-label design of insulin makes it difficult to prevent investigator-dependent bias and may influence the study protocol for desired outcomes. If one treatment is found to be superior over other, it could be possible that the drug in question is superior or the protocol is superior or both. Therefore, all comparative insulin trials must be interpreted in the light of these limitations. Also, with the passage of time, these modern basal analogs have been peppered with complicated and ever-changing rules and regulations. Ideally, the same sets of outcome measures should have been applied for the studies comparing all basal insulin; however, with the recent changes in regulations and a different outcome measures set in later studies, it is becoming more difficult to reach any meaningful conclusion.

This review will attempt to provide a simple, comprehensive, comparative, and critical assessment of these currently available basal insulin analogs.


   The Glargine Story Top


When glargine was seeking approval to USFDA from their phase III trials (typically named study A to I in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes), they could not establish any superiority of glargine over NPH in any parameters including comparative efficacy and safety. There was no difference in A1c and fasting blood sugar (FBS) at the end of these head-to-head studies. [22] As these studies were not typical treat-to-target trials, no data was generated highlighting any meaningful differences in total insulin dose or total basal dose at the end of studies. Although there were no differences in hypoglycemic parameters between the two basal insulins, surprisingly, two of the studies (study C and study E) with glargine showed higher trends of hypoglycemia compared to NPH. Overall, the glargine arm had significantly higher (4 times) pain at injection site compared to NPH across all the studies. Hypoglycemia was also defined as blood sugar < 50 mg/dl in majorities of these head-to-head trials except study G (<56 mg/dl). Finally, none of these studies looked for any hard end points including cardiovascular (CV) safety, as it was not required for approval during that point of time but glargine received FDA approval [22] [Table 2]. It should be noted that most of these trials used NPH twice daily.
Table 2: Comparing Glargine Vs NPH trials (Pre-FDA approval data)@

Click here to view


While there was no clear benefit during pre-approval data of glargine over NPH, subsequent post-FDA approval studies [Table 3] and their meta-analysis [Table 4] did show significant benefit of glargine over NPH based mainly on hypoglycemia outcome, especially nocturnal hypoglycemia. [23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38] Some studies also showed benefit in A1c and FBS reduction compared to NPH. Finally, a CV trial of glargine, Outcome Reduction with an Initial Galrgine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial showed CV neutrality of glargine over 6.2 years. [39]
Table 3: Comparing Glargine vs. NPH trials (post-FDA approval data)

Click here to view
Table 4: Hypoglycemia outcome from meta-analysis of randomized trials (Glargine Vs NPH)

Click here to view



   The Detemir Story Top


Detemir also requested USFDA approval from their phase III trials (typically named study A to F in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes). They also could not establish superiority over NPH in any parameters including comparative safety and efficacy [Table 5]. There was no difference in A1c and FBS at the end of these head-to-head studies. [40] As these studies were not typical treat-to-target trials, again no data was generated towards any meaningful differences in total insulin dose or total basal dose at the end of these studies. In general, there were no differences in hypoglycemia outcome between these two insulins. Overall, NPH showed higher trends of hypoglycemia compared to detemir but surprisingly in two of these studies (studies A and C) detemir showed higher trend of severe hypoglycemia compared to NPH. Hypoglycemia was defined as blood glucose of <50 mg/dl (plasma glucose < 56 mg/dl). [40] Finally, none of these studies looked for hard end points including CV safety, as it was not required for approval during that point of time but detemir received FDA approval. It should be noted again that the majority of these trials used NPH twice daily.
Table 5: Comparison of Detemir Vs NPH/Glargine trials (Pre-FDA approval data)

Click here to view


While there was no clear benefit during pre-approval data of detemir over NPH, the latter post-approval [Table 6] studies and their meta-analysis [Table 7] did show significant benefit of detemir over NPH mainly on hypoglycemia outcome, especially nocturnal hypoglycemia. Some studies also showed benefit in A1c and FBS reduction compared to NPH. [13],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57] Detemir has not been involved in CV trials so far to show any hard end point reduction or prove CV neutrality, as seen with glargine in ORIGIN trial.
Table 6: Comparison of detemir Vs NPH trials (post-FDA approval data)

Click here to view
Table 7: Meta-analysis of randomized trials (detemir versus NPH)

Click here to view



   The Degludec Story Top


Degludec is newer ultra-long-acting basal analog seeking USFDA approval based on their phase III trials (typically named BEGIN trials) comparing head-to-head against glargine and detemir [Table 8]. Majority of these phase III pre-approval studies and their meta-analysis suggested a significant improvement in nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to glargine (glargine and detemir, however, could not prove any improvement in hypoglycemia outcomes in their pre-approval studies over NPH). As all these studies are primarily treat-to-target, there were no differences in A1c at the end but some of the studies suggested a better FBS control and required lesser doses (10-12%) when compared to glargine. [58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67]
Table 8: Comparison of degludec Vs glargine trial (pre-FDA approval data)

Click here to view


However, these head-to-head degludec versus glargine trials must be interpreted in the light of certain limitations. Firstly, the target to achieve fasting glucose of <90 mg/dl is too ambitious a goal and not widely practiced in reality; therefore, the minimal hypoglycemic benefit achieved with one agent may not be largely substantial in real world settings. Secondly, degludec was always administered with the main evening meal whereas insulin glargine could be given (per label) at any time of day in these studies. This disparity between timings of injection might have confounded the nocturnal hypoglycemia outcome. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of degludec could be another area of argument. Although a short-term economic model evaluating the cost-effectiveness of degludec versus glargine in type 2 diabetes suggested its benefit in patients suffering from recurrent hypoglycemia, the overall cost benefit in the entire spectrum of diabetes is yet to be evaluated.

Interestingly, the criteria used to define hypoglycemia and nocturnal timings in these head-to-head studies, received criticism from USFDA. Notably, ADA defines hypoglycemia as blood sugar < 70 mg/dl, and none of these degludec studies followed this ADA principle. However, in reality, neither of the earlier basal insulin studies carried out so far with glargine and detemir used these ADA criteria in their pre-approval studies when compared to NPH (possibly because these definitions emerged later). However, when this ADA criterion of hypoglycemia was applied to these degludec head-to-head studies against glargine, the margin of benefits showed a reduction but still remained significant in quite a few studies [Table 9]. When nocturnal timings were changed by 2 hours on either side of Novo-Nordisk timings (as stated by FDA), the margin of benefit was reduced but nevertheless still persisted in some studies [Table 10]. [68],[69]
Table 9: Hypoglycemia definition and nocturnal hypoglycemia rate ratios IDeg/IGlar

Click here to view
Table 10: Different definitions of nocturnal timing and nocturnal hypoglycemia rate ratios IDeg/IGlar

Click here to view


Subsequently, FDA reviews board have not yet approved degludec based upon their updated data, which showed increase in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) by 33% when unstable angina was excluded from original dataset, other regulators such European agency (EMA), Japan FDA, and many other countries including Mexico and India have already given their approval to degludec based on the same original data. FDA will likely reconsider its approval once further updated data in this regard is placed. Nevertheless, it is evident that when unstable angina was not excluded from the original data set of the pre-approved protocol, MACE events were not found to be raised with degludec [Table 11]. It is also unclear as to why FDA decided to exclude unstable angina from MACE. [68],[69]
Table 11: Pooled hazard ratio estimates for MACE

Click here to view


However, an area that needs further clarification about degludec is the effect of over-insulinization and its consequences on CV effect and mitogenecity in the long term. Generally, in insulin-treated persons with type 2 diabetes, it is standard to recommend that plasma insulin concentrations remain within a 50-200 pmol/L range in order to avoid over-insulinization. Such concentrations are achieved when daily doses of insulin glargine or NPH insulin approximate 0.4 units/kg. However, the total plasma insulin concentrations are much greater in persons treated with insulin degludec. As this insulin derives its protracted action from the insertion of a long chain fatty acid moiety to the insulin molecule, thereby increasing albumin binding, consequently in persons with type 2 diabetes, stable total plasma concentrations as high as 6000 pmol/L are observed for insulin degludec. [70] At present, the free to bound ratio of plasma insulin concentrations remains unknown for this insulin. Currently, we need to fully understand as to how this insulin is eliminated or degraded and to quantify the respective contributions of the free and bound fractions. Lastly, a prospective CV studies with degludec in line with the ORIGIN study will actually throw some light and possibly clarify some of these issues. [71]


   Conclusion Top


The struggle to find the ideal basal insulin continues. NPH has a short half life, has to be injected twice, has a higher variability, and with higher hypoglycemia. The biggest advantage with NPH is the ability to mix with other insulin. Glargine is a definite improvement over NPH, being longer acting, used once daily, with much lesser variability, and lesser nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to NPH. Detemir is even more improvised technically with lesser variability, lesser nocturnal hypoglycemia, and lesser weight gain compared to glargine, but detemir often needs twice daily injection and much larger doses. Both glargine and detemir cannot be mixed with other insulins.

Degludec seems to be the most improvised insulin analog with a flatter profile, least variability, and a truly once-daily dose with the advantage of flexible timing of administration, lesser nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to glargine [Figure 3], and the ability to be mixed with any insulin as well as GLP-1 agonist. However, ideally, degludec too should pass the acid test by conducting equivalent prospective CV trials such as ORIGIN.
Figure 3: Meta-analysis of all the trials (nocturnal hypoglycaemia outcome)

Click here to view


 
   References Top

1.Borgono CA, Zinman B. Insulins: Past, present, and future. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2012;41:1-24.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Tibaldi JM. Evolution of insulin development: Focus on key parameters. Adv Ther 2012;29:590-619.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Shah VN, Moser EG, Blau A, Dhingra M, Garg SK. The future of basal insulin. Diabetes Technol Ther 2013;15:727-32.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Hirsch IB. Insulin analogues. N Engl J Med 2005;352:174-83.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Owens DR. Insulin preparations with prolonged effect. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13 Suppl 1:S5-14.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Heise T, Pieber TR. Towards peakless, reproducible and long-acting insulins. An assessment of the basal analogues based on isoglycaemic clamp studies. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007;9:648-59.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Garber AJ. Restaging insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2009;11 (Suppl 5):1-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Jehle PM, Micheler C, Jehle DR, Breitiq D, Boehm BO. Inadequate suspension of neutral protamine Hagendorn (NPH) insulin in pens. Lancet 1999;354:1604-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Devries JH, Nattrass M, Pieber TR. Refining basal insulin therapy: What have we learned in the age of analogues? Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2007;23:441-54  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Rosenstock J, Davies M, Home PD, Larsen J, Koenen C, Schernthaner G. A randomised, 52-week, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine when administered as add-on to glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2008;51:408-16.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Le Floch JP, Levy M, Mosnier-Pudar H, Nobels F, Laroche S, Gonbert S, et al. Assessment of Detemir Administration in Progressive Treat-to-Target Trial (ADAPT) Study Group. Comparison of once- versus twice-daily administration of insulin detemir, used with mealtime insulin aspart, in basal-bolus therapy for type 1 diabetes: Assessment of detemir administration in a progressive treat-to-target trial (ADAPT). Diabetes Care 2009;32:32-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Robertson KJ, Schoenle E, Gucev Z, Mordhorst L, Gall MA, Ludvigsson J. Insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin in children and adolescents with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2007;24:27-34.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Garg SK, Gottlieb PA, Hisatomi ME, D′Souza A, Walker AJ, Izuora KE, et al. Improved glycemic control without an increase in severe hypoglycemic episodes in intensively treated patients with type 1 diabetes receiving morning, evening, or split dose insulin glargine. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004;66:49-56.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Peterson GE. Intermediate and long-acting insulins: A review of NPH insulin, insulin glargine and insulin detemir. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:2613-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.Evans M, Schumm-Draeger PM, Vora J, King AB. A review of modern insulin analogue pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in type 2 diabetes: Improvements and limitations. Diabetes Obes Metab 2011;13:677-84.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Ashwell SG, Gebbie J, Home PD. Optimal timing of injection of once-daily insulin glargine in people with Type 1 diabetes using insulin lispro at meal-times. Diabet Med 2006;23:46-52.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Kalra S, Unnikrishnan AG, Baruah M, Kalra B. Degludec insulin: A novel basal insulin. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2011;15 (Suppl 1):S12-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Jonassen I, Havelund S, Hoeg-Jensen T, Steensgaard DB, Wahlund PO, Ribel U. Design of the novel protraction mechanism of insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting basal insulin. Pharm Res 2012;29:2104-14  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Heise T, Nosek L, Bøttcher SG, Hastrup H, Haahr H. Ultra-long-acting insulin degludec has a flat and stable glucose-lowering effect in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2012;14:944-50.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Keating GM. Insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart: A review of their use in the management of diabetes mellitus. Drugs 2013;73:575-93.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Heise T, Hermanski L, Nosek L, Feldman A, Rasmussen S, Haahr H. Insulin degludec: Four times lower pharmacodynamic variability than insulin glargine under steady-state conditions in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2012;14:859-64.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.FDA documents of glargine approval. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021081s034lbl.pdf [Last accessed on 2014 Mar 20].  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Pieber TR, Eugene-Jolchine I, Derobert E. Efficacy and safety of HOE901 versus NPH insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:157-62.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Raskin P, Klaff L, Bergenstal T, Hallé JP, Donley D, Mecca T. A 16-week comparison of the novel insulin, insulin glargine (HOE 901) and NPH insulin used with insulin lispro in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:1666-71.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Yki-Ja¨rvinen H, Dressler A, Ziemen M; HOE 901/300s Study Group. Less nocturnal hypoglycaemia and better post-dinner glucose control with bedtime insulin glargine compared with bedtime NPH insulin during insulin combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000;23:1130-6.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Riddle MC, Rosenstock J, Gerich J; Insulin Glargine 4002 Study Investigators. The treat-to-target trial: Randomized addition of glargine or human NPH insulin to oral therapy of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2003;26:3080-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Rosenstock J, Park G, Zimmerman J; U.S. Insulin Glargine (HOE 901) Type 1 Diabetes Investigator Group. Basal insulin glargine (HOE 901) versus NPH in patients with Type 1 diabetes on multiple day insulin regimens. U.S. Insulin Glargine (HOE 901) Type 1 Diabetes Investigator Group. Diabetes Care 2000; 23:1137-42.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Ratner RE, Hirsch IB, Neifing JL, Garg SK, Mecca TE, Wilson CA. Less hypoglycemia with insulin glargine in intensive insulin therapy in Type 1 diabetes. U.S. Study Group of Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23:639-43.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Rosenstock J, Schwartz SL, Clark CM Jr, Park GD, Donley DW, Edwards MB. Basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: 28-week comparison of insulin glargine (HOE 901) and NPH insulin. Diabetes Care 2001;24:631-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.Home PD, Fritsche A, Schinzel S, Massi-Benedetti M. Meta-analysis of individual patient data to assess the risk of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes using NPH insulin or insulin glargine. Diabetes Obes Metab 2010;12:772-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Dunn CJ, Plosker GL, Keating GM, McKeage K, Scott LJ. Insulin glargine: An updated review of its use in the management of diabetes mellitus. Drugs 2003;63:1743-78.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.Garg SK, Paul JM, Karsten JI, Menditto L, Gottlieb PA. Reduced severe hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine in intensively treated adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2004;6:589-95.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.Goykhman S, Drincic A, Desmangles JC, Rendell M. Insulin glargine: A review 8 years after its introduction. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2009;10:705-18.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.Rosenstock J, Dailey G, Massi-Benedetti M, Fritsche A, Lin Z, Salzman A. Reduced hypoglycaemia risk with insulin glargine: A meta-analysis comparing insulin glargine with human NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005;28:950-5.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.Horvath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A, Ebrahim SH, Gratzer TW, Plank J, et al. Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;CD005613.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Mullins P, Sharplin P, Yki-Jarvinen H, Riddle MC, Haring HU. Negative binomial meta-regression analysis of combined glycosylated hemoglobin and hypoglycemia outcomes across eleven Phase III and IV studies of insulin glargine compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2007;29:1607-19.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Bazzano LA, Lee LJ, Shi L, Reynolds K, Jackson JA, Fonseca V. Safety and efficacy of glargine compared with NPH insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabet Med 2008;25:924-32.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.Monami M, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Long-acting insulin analogues vs. NPH human insulin in type 1 diabetes. A meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2009;11:372-8.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.ORIGIN Trial Investigators; Gerstein HC, Bosch J, Dagenais GR, Díaz R, Jung H, Maggioni AP, et al. Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia. N Engl J Med 2012;367:319-28.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.FDA documents of detemir approval. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/021536s037lbl.pdf [Last accessed on 2014 Mar 20].  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.Russell-Jones D, Simpson R, Hylleberg B, Draeger E, Bolinder J. Effects of QD insulin detemir or neutral protamine hagedorn on blood glucose control in patients with type I diabetes mellitus using a basal bolus regimen. Clin Ther 2004;26:724-36.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Home P, Bartley P, Russell-Jones D, Hanaire-Broutin H, Heeg JE, Abrams P, et al. Study to Evaluate the Administration of Detemir Insulin Efficacy, Safety and Suitability (STEADINESS) Study Group. Insulin detemir offers improved glycemic control compared with NPH insulin in people with type I diabetes: A randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1081-7.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.Hermansen K, Fontaine P, Kukolja KK, Peterkova V, Leth G, Gall MA. Insulin analogues (insulin detemir and insulin aspart) versus traditional human insulins (NPH insulin and regular human insulin) in basal bolus therapy for patients with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 2004;47:622-9.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.Pieber TR, Draeger E, Kristensen A, Grill V. Comparison of three multiple injection regimens for Type 1 diabetes: Morning plus dinner or bedtime administration of insulin detemir versus morning plus bedtime NPH insulin. Diabet Med 2005;22:850-7.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.Kolendorf K, Pavlic-Renar I, Santeusanio F. Insulin detemir is associated with lower risk of hypoglycemia than NPH insulin in people with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2004;53 (Suppl 1):A130.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.Raslová K, Bogoev M, Raz I, Leth G, Gall MA, Hâncu N. Insulin detemir and insulin aspart: A promising basal-bolus regimen for Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004;66:193-201.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.Haak T, Tiengo A, Draeger E, Suntum M, Waldhäusl W. Lower within-subject variability of fasting blood glucose and reduced weight gain with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2005;7:56-64.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.Hermansen K, Davies M, Derezinski T, Martinez Ravn G, Clauson P, Home P. A 26-week, randomized, parallel, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin as add-on therapy to oral glucose lowering drugs in insulin-naive people with Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1269-74.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.Szypowska A, Golicki D, Groele L, Pañkowska E. Long acting insulin analogue detemir compared with NPH insulin in type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta analysis. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2011;121:237-46  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.Morales J. Defining the role of insulin detemir in basal insulin therapy. Drugs 2007;67:2557-84.  Back to cited text no. 50
[PUBMED]    
51.Bartley PC, Bogoev M, Larsen J, Philotheou A. Long-term efficacy and safety of insulin detemir compared to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a treat-to-target basal-bolus regimen with insulin aspart at meals: A 2-year, randomized, controlled trial. Diabet Med 2008;25:442-9.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.Kølendorf K, Ross GP, Pavlic-Renar I, Perriello G, Philotheou A, Jendle J, et al. Insulin detemir lowers the risk of hypoglycaemia and provides more consistent plasma glucose levels compared with NPH insulin in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2006;23:729-35.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.Hermansen K, Davies M, Derezinski T, Martinez Ravn G, Clauson P, Home P. A 26-week, randomized, parallel, treat-to-target trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin as add-on therapy to oral glucose-lowering drugs in insulin-naý¨ve people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1269-74.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.Philis-Tsimikas A, Charpentier G, Clauson P, Ravn GM, Roberts VL, Thorsteinsson B. Comparison of once-daily insulin detemir with NPH insulin added to a regimen of oral antidiabetic drugs in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Clin Ther 2006;28:1569-81.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.Vague P, Selam JL, Skeie S, De Leeuw I, Elte JW, Haahr H, et al. Insulin detemir is associated with more predictable glycemic control and reduced risk of hypoglycaemia than NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen with premeal insulin aspart. Diabetes Care 2003;26:590-6.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.Standl E, Lang H, Roberts A. The 12-month efficacy and safety of insulin detemir and NPH insulin in basal-bolus therapy for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2004;6:579-88.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.Meneghini LF, Rosenberg KH, Koenen C, Merilainen MJ, Lüddeke HJ. Insulin detemir improves glycaemic control with less hypoglycaemia and no weight gain in patients with type 2 diabetes who were insulin naý¨ve or treated with NPH or insulin glargine: Clinical practice experience from a German subgroup of the PREDICTIVE study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007;9:418-27.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.Novo Nordisk. Insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart treatment to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus. Briefing Information for the November 8, 2012 Meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/.../UCM327017.pdf [Last accessed on 2014 Mar 20].  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.Heller S, Buse J, Fisher M, Garg S, Marre M, Merker L, et al.; BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 1 Trial Investigators. Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 1): A phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2012;379:1489-97.  Back to cited text no. 59
[PUBMED]    
60.Mathieu C, Hollander P, Miranda-Palma B, Cooper J, Franek E, Russell-Jones D, et al.; NN1250-3770 (BEGIN: Flex T1) Trial Investigators. Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec in a flexible dosing regimen vs insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes (BEGIN: Flex T1): A 26-week randomized, treat-to-target trial with a 26-week extension. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:1154-62.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.Zinman B, Philis-Tsimikas A, Cariou B, Handelsman Y, Rodbard HW, Johansen T, et al.; NN1250-3579 (BEGIN Once Long) Trial Investigators. Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: A 1-year, randomized, treat-to-target trial (BEGIN Once Long). Diabetes Care 2012;35:2464-71.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.Garber AJ, King AB, Del Prato S, Sreenan S, Balci MK, Muñoz-Torres M, et al. NN1250-3582 (BEGIN BB T2D) Trial Investigators. Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 2 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 2): A phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2012;379:1498-507.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.Onishi Y, Park SW, Yoo SJ. Insulin degludec improves glycemic control in insulin naive patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a randomized pan-Asian trial (Abstract 1059-P). Diabetes 2012;61 Suppl 1:A272.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.Meneghini L, Atkin SL, Gough SC, Raz I, Blonde L, Shestakova M, et al. NN1250-3668 (BEGIN FLEX) Trial Investigators. The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec given in variable once-daily dosing intervals compared with insulin glargine and insulin degludec dosed at the same time daily: A 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2013;36:858-64.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.Gough SC, Bhargava A, Jain R, Mersebach H, Rasmussen S, Bergenstal RM. Low-volume insulin degludec 200 units/mL once daily improves glycemic control similar to insulin glargine with a low risk of hypoglycaemia in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: A 26-week, randomized, controlled, multinational, treat-to-target trial: The BEGIN LOW VOLUME trial. Diabetes Care 2013;36:2536-42  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.Zinman B, DeVries JH, Bode B, Russell-Jones D, Leiter LA, Moses A, et al.; NN1250-3724 (BEGIN: EASY AM) and NN1250-3718 (BEGIN: EASY PM) Trial Investigators. Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec three times a week versus insulin glargine once a day in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of two phase 3, 26 week, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2013;1:123-31.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.Ratner RE, Gough SC, Mathieu C, Del Prato S, Bode B, Mersebach H, et al. Hypoglycaemia risk with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in type 2 and type 1 diabetes: A pre-planned meta-analysis of phase 3 trials. Diabetes Obes Metab 2013;15:175-84.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.Owens DR, Matfin G, Monnier L. Basal insulin analogues in the management of diabetes mellitus: What progress have we made? Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2014;30:104-19.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.U.S. Food and Drug Administration-FDA Briefing Information, Insulin Degludec and Insulin Degludec/Aspart, for the November 8, 2012 Meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/.../ucm327015.pdf [Last accessed on 2014 Mar 20].  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.Monnier L, Colette C, Owens D. Basal insulin analogs: From pathophysiology to therapy. What we see, know, and try to comprehend? Diabetes Metab 2013;39:468-76.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.Singh AK, Sinha B. Basal insulin analogues - lesson learnt from current evidences. J Indian Med Assoc 2013;111:735-6, 738-42.  Back to cited text no. 71
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10], [Table 11]


This article has been cited by
1 Insulin analogs: Glimpse on contemporary facts and future prospective
Arun K. Sharma,Gaurav Taneja,Ashish Kumar,Megha Sahu,Gunjan Sharma,Asim Kumar,Satish Sardana,Aakash Deep
Life Sciences. 2019; 219: 90
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Internalization and localization of basal insulin peglispro in cells
Julie S. Moyers,Catherine B. Volk,Julia X.C. Cao,Chen Zhang,Liyun Ding,Vladislav V. Kiselyov,M. Dodson Michael
Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   The Glargine Story
   The Detemir Story
   The Degludec Story
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3353    
    Printed20    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded873    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal