CGM-Based Real-World Data on the Transition from Glargine U100 to U300 in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

Abstract

This study aimed to compare continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters in children and adolescents with Type 1 diabetes (T1D) who transitioned from glargine U100 to glargine U300 to evaluate efficacy and safety. A total of 52 participants aged 6–18 years using CGM were analyzed before and after transitioning from glargine U100 to glargine U300. For each individual, a 2-week CGM data collection was conducted after optimizing the glargine U100 dose. Participants then switched to glargine U300 at the same dose, with doses adjusted based on CGM graphs every three days. One week after the final dose adjustment, a second 2-week CGM period was recorded. Additionally, nighttime (00:00–08:00 h) data were analyzed, with glucose fluctuations measured by coefficient of variation (CV) and root mean squared error (RMSE). All parameters were compared between glargine U100 and U300. No significant differences were observed in glucose management indicator (GMI) or time in range (TIR) between glargine U100 and U300. However, glargine U300 was associated with significantly reduced hypoglycemia frequency and duration across 24-hour and nocturnal periods. Lower CV and RMSE values during nighttime further indicated reduced glycemic variability with glargine U300. An average 10% increase in basal insulin dose was required following the transition. The study provides real-world, CGM-based evidence suggesting that glargine U300 offers a safer, more stable option for managing T1D in children, particularly in reducing hypoglycemia. These findings highlight glargine U300’s potential advantages in glycemic stability, supporting its use in pediatric diabetes care.

Keywords

glargine U300 - glargine U100 - continuous glucose monitoring - type 1 diabetes

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 11. Januar 2025

Angenommen nach Revision: 12. Juni 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
12. Juni 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. Juli 2025

• References

• 1 Wilson LM, Castle JR. Recent advances in insulin therapy. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020; 22: 929-936
• 2 Danne T, Tamborlane WV, Malievsky OA. et al. Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100) in children and adolescents (6-17 years) with type 1 diabetes: results of the EDITION JUNIOR randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2020; 43: 1512-1519
• 3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Toujeo (insulin glargine injection) [label information on the Internet]. Cited 2024 Sep 29. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/206538s012lbl.pdf
• 4 Hurren KM, O’Neill JL. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic evaluation of insulin glargine U300 for the treatment of type 1 diabetes. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2016; 12: 1521-1526
• 5 Couper JJ, Haller MJ, Greenbaum CJ. et al. ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: stages of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes 2018; 19: 20-27
• 6 Neyzi O, Bundak R, Gökçay G. et al. Reference values for weight, height, head circumference, and body mass index in Turkish children. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2015; 7: 280-293
• 7 Demir K, Konakçı E, Özkaya G. et al. New features for child metrics: further growth references and blood pressure calculations. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 2020; 12: 125-129
• 8 Marshall WA, Tanner JM. Variations in pattern of pubertal changes in girls. Arch Dis Child 1969; 44: 291-303
• 9 Marshall WA, Tanner JM. Variations in the pattern of pubertal changes in boys. Arch Dis Child 1970; 45: 13-23
• 10 Graham O, Middlehurst A, Silink M. et al. Pocketbook for management of diabetes in childhood and adolescence in under-resourced countries, 2nd ed [Internet]. International Diabetes Federation; 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 5]. Available from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ispad.org/resource/resmgr/LFAC-ISPAD-Pocketbook-2nd-ed.pdf
• 11 Rossi MC, Bonfanti R, Graziano G. et al. Effectiveness of switching from first-generation basal insulin to Glargine 300 U/mL in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: results from the ISPED CARD database. Acta Diabetol 2024; 61: 1169-1176
• 12 Rabbone I, Pozzi E, Savastio S. et al. A comparison of the effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml versus 100 U/ml in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes: a retrospective, observational, short-term study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2022; 24: 2474-2477
• 13 Becker RHA, Dahmen R, Bergmann K. et al. New insulin glargine 300 Units·mL^–1 provides a more even activity profile and prolonged glycemic control at steady state compared with insulin glargine 100 Units·mL^–1 . Diabetes Care 2015; 38: 637-643
• 14 Bergenstal RM, Bailey TS, Rodbard D. et al. Comparison of insulin glargine 300 units/mL and 100 units/mL in adults with type 1 diabetes: continuous glucose monitoring profiles and variability using morning or evening injections. Diabetes Care 2017; 40: 554-560
• 15 Home PD, Bergenstal RM, Bolli GB. et al. New insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus glargine 100 units/mL in people with type 1 diabetes: a randomized, phase 3a, open-label clinical trial (EDITION 4). Diabetes Care 2015; 38: 2217-2225
• 16 Joshi SR, Singh G, Marwah A. et al. Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/ml (Toujeo) versus insulin glargine 100 U/ml in type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2023; 25: 1589-1606
• 17 Andrade CS, Ribeiro GS, Santos CAST. et al. Factors associated with high levels of glycated haemoglobin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre study in Brazil. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e018094
• 18 Campbell MD, West DJ, O’Mahoney LL. et al. The relative contribution of diurnal and nocturnal glucose exposures to HbA1c in type 1 diabetes males: a pooled analysis. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2022; 21: 573-581
• 19 Ross LA, Warren RE, Kelnar CJH. et al. Pubertal stage and hypoglycaemia counterregulation in type 1 diabetes. Arch Dis Child 2005; 90: 190-194
• 20 Toujeo summary of product characteristics [Internet], 2017 cited 2024 Oct 6; Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2017/20171003139002/anx_139002_en.pdf
• 21 Ji L, Kang ES, Dong X. et al. Efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL in Asia Pacific insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: The EDITION AP randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2020; 22: 612-621
• 22 Bolli GB, Riddle MC, Bergenstal RM. et al. Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300U/mL versus insulin glargine 100U/mL in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes: 12-month results from the EDITION 3 trial. Diabetes Metab 2017; 43: 351-358
• 23 Duque N, Artime E, Romera I. et al. Real-world use of insulin glargine U100 and U300 in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: DosInGlar study. Adv Ther 2021; 38: 3857-3871
• 24 Abitbol A, Brown RE, Jiandani D. et al. Real-world health outcomes of insulin glargine 300 U/mL vs insulin glargine 100 U/mL in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the Canadian LMC diabetes patient registry: the REALITY study. Can J Diabetes 2019; 43: 504-509
• 25 Martin ZY, Takagi T. et al. Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec U100 versus insulin glargine U300 in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison. Int J Clin Pharm 2022; 44: 587-598
• 26 Battelino T, Danne T, Edelman SV. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring-based time-in-range using insulin glargine 300 units/ml versus insulin degludec 100 units/ml in type 1 diabetes: the head-to-head randomized controlled InRange trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2023; 25: 545-555