Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level. Aim: To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH. Methods: We identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. Results: We found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24). Conclusion: This study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]