Yki-Järvinen H, Dressler A, Ziemen M
Department of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Diabetes Care. 2000 Aug;23(8):1130-6. doi: 10.2337/diacare.23.8.1130.
Available basal insulin formulations do not provide a constant and reliable 24-h insulin supply. We compared the efficacy and safety of glargine (a long-acting insulin analog) and NPH insulins in insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients treated with oral antidiabetic agents.
There were 426 type 2 diabetic patients (age 59 +/- 9 years, BMI 28.9 +/- 4.3 kg/m2, mean +/- SD) with poor glycemic control on oral antidiabetic agents randomized to treatment for 1 year with bedtime insulin glargine or bedtime NPH insulin. Oral agents were continued unchanged. The fasting blood glucose (FBG) target was 6.7 mmol/l (120 mg/dl).
Average glycemic control improved similarly with both insulins (HbA(1c), [reference range <6.5%] 8.3 +/- 0.1 vs. 8.2 +/- 0.1% at 1 year, glargine vs. NPH, mean +/- SEM, P < 0.001 vs. baseline for both). However, there was less nocturnal hypoglycemia (9.9 vs. 24.0% of all patients, glargine vs. NPH, P < 0.001) and lower post-dinner glucose concentrations (9.9 +/- 0.2 vs. 10.7 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P < 0.02) with insulin glargine than with NPH. Insulin doses and weight gain were comparable. In patients reaching target FBG, HbA(1c) averaged 7.7 and 7.6% in the glargine and NPH groups at 1 year.
Use of insulin glargine compared with NPH is associated with less nocturnal hypoglycemia and lower post-dinner glucose levels. These data are consistent with peakless and longer duration of action of insulin glargine compared with NPH. Achievement of acceptable average glucose control requires titration of the insulin dose to an FBG target < or =6.7 mmol/l. These data support use of insulin glargine instead of NPH in insulin combination regimens in type 2 diabetes.
现有的基础胰岛素制剂无法提供持续且可靠的24小时胰岛素供应。我们比较了甘精胰岛素(一种长效胰岛素类似物)和中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素(NPH胰岛素)在使用口服降糖药治疗的初治2型糖尿病患者中的疗效和安全性。
426例2型糖尿病患者(年龄59±9岁,体重指数28.9±4.3kg/m²,均值±标准差),口服降糖药治疗后血糖控制不佳,随机分为两组,分别接受睡前甘精胰岛素或睡前NPH胰岛素治疗1年。口服降糖药维持不变。空腹血糖(FBG)目标值为6.7mmol/L(120mg/dl)。
两种胰岛素治疗后平均血糖控制改善情况相似(糖化血红蛋白[HbA(1c),参考范围<6.5%],1年后甘精胰岛素组为8.3±0.1%,NPH胰岛素组为8.2±0.1%,均值±标准误,两组与基线相比P<0.001)。然而,与NPH胰岛素相比,甘精胰岛素导致的夜间低血糖更少(所有患者中分别为9.9%和24.0%,甘精胰岛素组与NPH胰岛素组,P<0.001),晚餐后血糖浓度更低(9.9±0.2与10.7±0.3mmol/L,P<0.02)。胰岛素剂量和体重增加情况相当。在达到FBG目标值的患者中,1年后甘精胰岛素组和NPH胰岛素组的HbA(1c)平均分别为7.7%和7.6%。
与NPH胰岛素相比,使用甘精胰岛素与更少的夜间低血糖和更低的晚餐后血糖水平相关。这些数据与甘精胰岛素相比NPH胰岛素无峰值且作用持续时间更长一致。要实现可接受的平均血糖控制,需要将胰岛素剂量滴定至FBG目标值≤6.7mmol/L。这些数据支持在2型糖尿病胰岛素联合治疗方案中使用甘精胰岛素而非NPH胰岛素。