Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis

• Published in: BMJ open 2022-11, Vol.12 (11), p.e058034
• Main Authors: Veroniki, Areti Angeliki, Seitidis, Georgios, Stewart, Lesley, Clarke, Mike, Tudur-Smith, Catrin, Mavridis, Dimitris, Yu, Catherine H, Moja, Lorenzo, Straus, Sharon E, Tricco, Andrea C
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Bias; Clinical significance; Diabetes; DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY; Diabetes and Endocrinology; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - drug therapy; EPIDEMIOLOGY; Funding; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemia - chemically induced; Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use; Insulin; Insulin - therapeutic use; Insulin Glargine - therapeutic use; Insulin, Isophane; Insulin, Long-Acting - therapeutic use; Meta-analysis; Network Meta-Analysis; Patients; PUBLIC HEALTH; Systematic review
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058034

ObjectiveTo examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).DesignSystematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens.Data extraction and synthesisWe requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD.ResultsWe included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=−0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.48 to −0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=−0.25, 95% CI: –0.41 to −0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=−0.30, 95% CI: –0.50 to −0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03).ConclusionsLong-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted wit