Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 8/2021

01-08-2021 | Insulins | Review Paper

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Authors: Andrea C. Tricco, PhD, Huda M. Ashoor, BSc, Jesmin Antony, MSc, Zachary Bouck, MPH, Myanca Rodrigues, HBSc, Ba’ Pham, PhD, Paul A. Khan, PhD, Vera Nincic, PhD, Nazia Darvesh, MSc, Fatemeh Yazdi, MSc, Marco Ghassemi, MSc, John D. Ivory, MSc, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, PhD, Catherine H. Yu, MD, Lorenzo Moja, Sharon E. Straus, MD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 8/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR).

Results

We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12).

Conclusions

Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction.

PROSPERO Registration

CRD42017077051
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Supplement 1):S13-S27. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(Supplement 1):S13-S27.
2.
go back to reference Angela McGibbon M, Lenley Adams M, Karen Ingersoll R, Barna Tugwell M. Glycemic management in adults with type 1 diabetes. Can J Diabetes 2018;42:S80-S7.PubMedCrossRef Angela McGibbon M, Lenley Adams M, Karen Ingersoll R, Barna Tugwell M. Glycemic management in adults with type 1 diabetes. Can J Diabetes 2018;42:S80-S7.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Sanches AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. Revisiting the efficacy of long-acting insulin analogues on adults with type 1 diabetes using mixed-treatment comparisons. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011;94(3):333-9.PubMedCrossRef Sanches AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. Revisiting the efficacy of long-acting insulin analogues on adults with type 1 diabetes using mixed-treatment comparisons. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011;94(3):333-9.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Vardi M, Jacobson E, Nini A, Bitterman H. Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008(3):Cd006297. Vardi M, Jacobson E, Nini A, Bitterman H. Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008(3):Cd006297.
5.
go back to reference Bode BW, Buse JB, Fisher M, et al. Insulin degludec improves glycaemic control with lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk than insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in Type 1 diabetes (BEGIN((R)) Basal-Bolus Type 1): 2-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Diabet Med 2013;30(11):1293-7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bode BW, Buse JB, Fisher M, et al. Insulin degludec improves glycaemic control with lower nocturnal hypoglycaemia risk than insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in Type 1 diabetes (BEGIN((R)) Basal-Bolus Type 1): 2-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Diabet Med 2013;30(11):1293-7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
go back to reference James J, Pollom RK, Hadjiyianni I, Buchholz G, Reed BL. Biosimilar insulins: What do you need to know? Int Diabetes Nursing 2017;14(1):32-5.CrossRef James J, Pollom RK, Hadjiyianni I, Buchholz G, Reed BL. Biosimilar insulins: What do you need to know? Int Diabetes Nursing 2017;14(1):32-5.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tieu C, Lucas EJ, DePaola M, Rosman L, Alexander GC. Efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulins compared to their reference products: A systematic review. PLoS One 2018;13(4):e0195012.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Tieu C, Lucas EJ, DePaola M, Rosman L, Alexander GC. Efficacy and safety of biosimilar insulins compared to their reference products: A systematic review. PLoS One 2018;13(4):e0195012.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Yamada T, Kamata R, Ishinohachi K, et al. Biosimilar vs originator insulins: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018;20(7):1787-92.PubMedCrossRef Yamada T, Kamata R, Ishinohachi K, et al. Biosimilar vs originator insulins: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018;20(7):1787-92.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Dolinar R, Lavernia F, Edelman S. A Guide to follow-on biologics and biosimilars with a focus on insulin. Endocr Pract 2018;24(2):195-204.PubMedCrossRef Dolinar R, Lavernia F, Edelman S. A Guide to follow-on biologics and biosimilars with a focus on insulin. Endocr Pract 2018;24(2):195-204.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference White J, Goldman J. Biosimilar and follow-on insulin: The ins, outs, and interchangeability. J Pharm Technol 2019;35(1):25-35.CrossRef White J, Goldman J. Biosimilar and follow-on insulin: The ins, outs, and interchangeability. J Pharm Technol 2019;35(1):25-35.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tricco AC, Ashoor HM, Antony J, et al. Safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting versus intermediate acting insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5459. Tricco AC, Ashoor HM, Antony J, et al. Safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting versus intermediate acting insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5459.
14.
go back to reference Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.
16.
go back to reference Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(11):777-84.PubMedCrossRef Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(11):777-84.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 2014;17(2):157-73.PubMedCrossRef Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, et al. Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 2014;17(2):157-73.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(9):944-52.PubMedCrossRef Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(9):944-52.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Synthesi.SR. Toronto, Canada: Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael's Hospital; 2012. Synthesi.SR. Toronto, Canada: Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael's Hospital; 2012.
22.
go back to reference Li T, Yu T, Hawkins BS, Dickersin K. Design, Analysis, and Reporting of Crossover Trials for Inclusion in a Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2015;10(8):e0133023.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Li T, Yu T, Hawkins BS, Dickersin K. Design, Analysis, and Reporting of Crossover Trials for Inclusion in a Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2015;10(8):e0133023.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
go back to reference StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2017. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2017.
24.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1539-58.CrossRef Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1539-58.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2:A Generalized Linear Modeling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Med Decis Mak 2013;33(5):607-17.CrossRef Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2:A Generalized Linear Modeling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Med Decis Mak 2013;33(5):607-17.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Dias S, Ades AE, Welton NJ, Jansen JP, Sutton AJ. Network Meta-Analysis for Decision-Making: Wiley; 2018. Dias S, Ades AE, Welton NJ, Jansen JP, Sutton AJ. Network Meta-Analysis for Decision-Making: Wiley; 2018.
27.
go back to reference Petropoulou M, Nikolakopoulou A, Veroniki AA, et al. Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2015. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;82:20-8.PubMedCrossRef Petropoulou M, Nikolakopoulou A, Veroniki AA, et al. Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2015. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;82:20-8.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Characteristics of Networks of Interventions: A Description of a Database of 186 Published Networks. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e86754.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Nikolakopoulou A, Chaimani A, Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Schmid CH, Salanti G. Characteristics of Networks of Interventions: A Description of a Database of 186 Published Networks. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e86754.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013;159(2):130-7.PubMedCrossRef Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013;159(2):130-7.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(2):80-97.PubMedCrossRef Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(2):80-97.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med 2013;11:159.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Jansen JP, Naci H. Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers. BMC Med 2013;11:159.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(2):98-110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(2):98-110.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
go back to reference White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JP. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(2):111-25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JP. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(2):111-25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42(1):332-45.PubMedCrossRef Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42(1):332-45.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
go back to reference White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata J 2011;11(2):255-70.CrossRef White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata J 2011;11(2):255-70.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Pesic M, Zivic S, Radenkovic S, Velojic M, Dimic D, Antic S. Comparison between basal insulin glargine and NPH insulin in patients with diabetes type 1 on conventional intensive insulin therapy. Vojnosanit Pregl 2007;64(4):247-52.PubMedCrossRef Pesic M, Zivic S, Radenkovic S, Velojic M, Dimic D, Antic S. Comparison between basal insulin glargine and NPH insulin in patients with diabetes type 1 on conventional intensive insulin therapy. Vojnosanit Pregl 2007;64(4):247-52.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Ludemann J, Milek K, Wilhelm B, Segner A, Jaeckel E. Daytime flexible application of Insulin degludec in patients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. MMW Fortschr Med. 2014;156 Suppl 3:89-97. Ludemann J, Milek K, Wilhelm B, Segner A, Jaeckel E. Daytime flexible application of Insulin degludec in patients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. MMW Fortschr Med. 2014;156 Suppl 3:89-97.
39.
go back to reference Shestakova MV, Antciferov MV, Mayorov AY, et al. Insulin degludec: a new basal insulin analogue with an ultra-long duration of action. Safety and efficacy in Russian patients with diabetes. Diabetes Mellitus 2015;18(4):130-41.CrossRef Shestakova MV, Antciferov MV, Mayorov AY, et al. Insulin degludec: a new basal insulin analogue with an ultra-long duration of action. Safety and efficacy in Russian patients with diabetes. Diabetes Mellitus 2015;18(4):130-41.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Segovia Portoles R, Ferrer-Garcia JC, Merino-Torres JF, Penalba MT, Albalat Galera R, Pinon-Selles F. Optimal timing of insulin detemir injection in patients with type 1 diabetes and poor metabolic control. Endocrinol Nutr 2010;57(4):140-6.PubMedCrossRef Segovia Portoles R, Ferrer-Garcia JC, Merino-Torres JF, Penalba MT, Albalat Galera R, Pinon-Selles F. Optimal timing of insulin detemir injection in patients with type 1 diabetes and poor metabolic control. Endocrinol Nutr 2010;57(4):140-6.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Hinneburg I. Insulindegludec, a new option for basal insulin needs. Med Monatsschr Pharm 2012:265-6. Hinneburg I. Insulindegludec, a new option for basal insulin needs. Med Monatsschr Pharm 2012:265-6.
42.
go back to reference Kobayashi M, Iwamoto Y, Kaku K, Kawamori R, Tajima N. 48-week Randomized Multicenter Open-label Parallel Group Phase 3 Trial to Compare Insulin Detemir and NPH Insulin Efficacy and Safety in Subjects with Insulin Requiring Diabetes Mellitus in a Basal-bolus Regimen. J Jpn Diabetes Soc 2007;50(9):649-63. Kobayashi M, Iwamoto Y, Kaku K, Kawamori R, Tajima N. 48-week Randomized Multicenter Open-label Parallel Group Phase 3 Trial to Compare Insulin Detemir and NPH Insulin Efficacy and Safety in Subjects with Insulin Requiring Diabetes Mellitus in a Basal-bolus Regimen. J Jpn Diabetes Soc 2007;50(9):649-63.
45.
go back to reference Heise T, Nosek L, Ronn BB, et al. Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2004;53(6):1614-20.PubMedCrossRef Heise T, Nosek L, Ronn BB, et al. Lower within-subject variability of insulin detemir in comparison to NPH insulin and insulin glargine in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2004;53(6):1614-20.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference 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(5):724-36.PubMedCrossRef 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(5):724-36.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Mathieu C, Hollander P, Miranda-Palma B, et al. 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(3):1154-62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mathieu C, Hollander P, Miranda-Palma B, et al. 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(3):1154-62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Heller S, Buse J, Fisher M, et al. 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(9825):1489-97.PubMedCrossRef Heller S, Buse J, Fisher M, et al. 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(9825):1489-97.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Heise T, Hovelmann U, Nosek L, Hermanski L, Bottcher SG, Haahr H. Comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin degludec and insulin glargine. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2015;11(8):1193-201.PubMedCrossRef Heise T, Hovelmann U, Nosek L, Hermanski L, Bottcher SG, Haahr H. Comparison of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of insulin degludec and insulin glargine. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2015;11(8):1193-201.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Koehler G, Heller S, Korsatko S, et al. Insulin degludec is not associated with a delayed or diminished response to hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine in type 1 diabetes: a double-blind randomised crossover study. Diabetologia 2014;57(1):40-9.PubMedCrossRef Koehler G, Heller S, Korsatko S, et al. Insulin degludec is not associated with a delayed or diminished response to hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine in type 1 diabetes: a double-blind randomised crossover study. Diabetologia 2014;57(1):40-9.PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Iga R, Uchino H, Kanazawa K, et al. Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes Compared with Degludec and Glargine on the Morning Injection: An Open-label Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther 2017;8(4):783-92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Iga R, Uchino H, Kanazawa K, et al. Glycemic Variability in Type 1 Diabetes Compared with Degludec and Glargine on the Morning Injection: An Open-label Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Ther 2017;8(4):783-92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Birkeland KI, Home PD, Wendisch U, et al. Insulin degludec in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial of a new-generation ultra-long-acting insulin compared with insulin glargine. Diabetes Care 2011;34(3):661-5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Birkeland KI, Home PD, Wendisch U, et al. Insulin degludec in type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial of a new-generation ultra-long-acting insulin compared with insulin glargine. Diabetes Care 2011;34(3):661-5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Heise T, Bain SC, Bracken RM, et al. Similar risk of exercise-related hypoglycaemia for insulin degludec to that for insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized cross-over trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2016;18(2):196-9.PubMedCrossRef Heise T, Bain SC, Bracken RM, et al. Similar risk of exercise-related hypoglycaemia for insulin degludec to that for insulin glargine in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized cross-over trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2016;18(2):196-9.PubMedCrossRef
54.
go back to reference Lane W, Bailey TS, Gerety G, et al. Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: The SWITCH 1 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017;318(1):33-44. Lane W, Bailey TS, Gerety G, et al. Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: The SWITCH 1 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017;318(1):33-44.
55.
go back to reference Heise T, Norskov M, Nosek L, Kaplan K, Famulla S, Haahr HL. Insulin degludec: Lower day-to-day and within-day variability in pharmacodynamic response compared with insulin glargine 300 U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19(7):1032-9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Heise T, Norskov M, Nosek L, Kaplan K, Famulla S, Haahr HL. Insulin degludec: Lower day-to-day and within-day variability in pharmacodynamic response compared with insulin glargine 300 U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19(7):1032-9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
go back to reference Korsatko S, Deller S, Koehler G, et al. A comparison of the steady-state pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of 100 and 200 U/mL formulations of ultra-long-acting insulin degludec. Clin Drug Investig 2013;33(7):515-21.PubMedCrossRef Korsatko S, Deller S, Koehler G, et al. A comparison of the steady-state pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of 100 and 200 U/mL formulations of ultra-long-acting insulin degludec. Clin Drug Investig 2013;33(7):515-21.PubMedCrossRef
57.
go back to reference 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(9):859-64.PubMedCrossRef 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(9):859-64.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Bailey TS, Pettus J, Roussel R, et al. Morning administration of 0.4U/kg/day insulin glargine 300U/mL provides less fluctuating 24-hour pharmacodynamics and more even pharmacokinetic profiles compared with insulin degludec 100U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab 2018;44(1):15-21.PubMedCrossRef Bailey TS, Pettus J, Roussel R, et al. Morning administration of 0.4U/kg/day insulin glargine 300U/mL provides less fluctuating 24-hour pharmacodynamics and more even pharmacokinetic profiles compared with insulin degludec 100U/mL in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab 2018;44(1):15-21.PubMedCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Wirtz VJ, Kaplan WA, Kwan GF, Laing RO. Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Circulation 2016;133(21):2076-85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Wirtz VJ, Kaplan WA, Kwan GF, Laing RO. Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Circulation 2016;133(21):2076-85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Authors
Andrea C. Tricco, PhD
Huda M. Ashoor, BSc
Jesmin Antony, MSc
Zachary Bouck, MPH
Myanca Rodrigues, HBSc
Ba’ Pham, PhD
Paul A. Khan, PhD
Vera Nincic, PhD
Nazia Darvesh, MSc
Fatemeh Yazdi, MSc
Marco Ghassemi, MSc
John D. Ivory, MSc
Areti Angeliki Veroniki, PhD
Catherine H. Yu, MD
Lorenzo Moja
Sharon E. Straus, MD
Publication date
01-08-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 8/2021
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06642-7

Other articles of this Issue 8/2021

Journal of General Internal Medicine 8/2021 Go to the issue

Healing Arts

Silver Linings

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.