Richter B, Neises G
Department of Metabolic Diseases and Nutrition, Heinrich-Heine University of Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, Duesseldorf, Germany, 40225.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(3):CD003816. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003816.
Human insulin was introduced for the routine treatment of diabetes mellitus in the early 1980s without adequate comparison of efficacy to animal insulin preparations. First reports of altered hypoglycaemia awareness after transfer to human insulin made physicians and especially patients uncertain about potential adverse effects of human insulin.
To assess the effects of different insulin species by evaluating their efficacy (in particular glycaemic control) and adverse effects profile (mainly hypoglycaemia).
A highly sensitive search for randomised controlled trials combined with key terms for identifying studies on human versus animal insulin was performed using the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2002), Medline (1966 to May, 2002) and Embase (1974 to February, 2002). We also searched reference lists and databases of ongoing trials. Date of latest search: May 2002.
We included randomised controlled clinical trials with diabetic patients of all ages that compared human to animal (for the most part purified porcine) insulin. Trial duration had to be at least one month in order to achieve reliable results on the main outcome parameter glycated haemoglobin.
Trial selection as well as evaluation of study quality was performed by two independent reviewers. The quality of reporting of each trial was assessed according to a modification of the quality criteria as specified by Schulz and by Jadad.
Altogether 2156 participants took part in the 45 randomised controlled studies that were discovered through extensive search efforts. Though many studies were of a randomised, double-blind design, most studies were of poor methodological quality. Purified porcine and semi-synthetic insulin were most often investigated. No significant differences in metabolic control or hypoglycaemic episodes between various insulin species could be elucidated. Insulin dose and insulin antibodies did not show relevant dissimilarities.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: A comparison of the effects of human and animal insulin as well as of the adverse reaction profile did not show clinically relevant differences. Many patient-oriented outcomes like health-related quality of life or diabetes complications and mortality were never investigated in high-quality randomised clinical trials. The story of the introduction of human might be repeated by contemporary launching campaigns to introduce pharmaceutical and technological innovations that are not backed up by sufficient proof of their advantages and safety.
20世纪80年代初,人胰岛素开始用于糖尿病的常规治疗,但未与动物胰岛素制剂进行充分的疗效比较。首次有报告称,改用人类胰岛素后低血糖意识发生改变,这让医生尤其是患者对人胰岛素的潜在不良反应感到不确定。
通过评估不同胰岛素种类的疗效(尤其是血糖控制情况)和不良反应谱(主要是低血糖)来评估其效果。
使用Cochrane图书馆(2002年第2期)、Medline(1966年至2002年5月)和Embase(1974年至2002年2月)对随机对照试验进行了高度敏感的检索,并结合用于识别关于人胰岛素与动物胰岛素研究的关键词。我们还检索了正在进行试验的参考文献列表和数据库。最新检索日期:2002年5月。
我们纳入了所有年龄段糖尿病患者的随机对照临床试验,这些试验比较了人胰岛素与动物(大部分为纯化猪胰岛素)胰岛素。试验持续时间必须至少为一个月,以便在主要结局参数糖化血红蛋白方面获得可靠结果。
试验选择以及研究质量评估由两名独立评审员进行。根据Schulz和Jadad规定的质量标准的修改版,对每个试验的报告质量进行评估。
通过广泛的检索努力共发现45项随机对照研究,共有2156名参与者。尽管许多研究采用随机、双盲设计,但大多数研究的方法学质量较差。最常研究的是纯化猪胰岛素和半合成胰岛素。无法阐明不同胰岛素种类在代谢控制或低血糖发作方面的显著差异。胰岛素剂量和胰岛素抗体未显示出相关差异。
人胰岛素与动物胰岛素的效果以及不良反应谱的比较未显示出临床相关差异。许多以患者为导向的结局,如与健康相关的生活质量、糖尿病并发症和死亡率,从未在高质量的随机临床试验中进行研究。当代引入药物和技术创新的推广活动可能会重演引入人胰岛素的故事,这些创新缺乏足够的优势和安全性证据支持。