Wang Fei, Carabino Jana M, Vergara Cunegundo M
Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, 06269-2092, USA.
Clin Ther. 2003 Jun;25(6):1541-77, discussion 1539-40. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80156-x.
Insulin glargine is the first long-acting basal insulin analogue indicated for subcutaneous administration once daily at bedtime in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and pediatric patients aged > or = 6 years with type 1 diabetes. It differs in structure from native human insulin by 3 amino acids, a structural modification that provides a delayed onset of action and a constant, peakless effect that has a duration of at least 24 hours.
The goal of this article was to help determine the current place in therapy of insulin glargine by reviewing all available efficacy and tolerability data published since its introduction onto the market.
Relevant English-language articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE from 1966 to October 2002 and PREMEDLINE for November 2002. The search terms used were insulin, analogs, analogues, diabetes mellitus, glargine, HOE901, HOE-901, efficacy, safety, comparative study, treatment outcome, and case report. The reference lists of the identified articles were searched for additional relevant publications. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data were reviewed and summarized. All large clinical trials (> or = 100 patients) evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of insulin glargine in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were included in the review. Studies were compared in terms of their designs, primary and secondary efficacy parameters (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)], fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and/or fasting blood glucose [FBG] level, incidence of hypoglycemia), and tolerability assessments.
Fourteen trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review, 7 of them published only in abstract form. All were multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trials conducted in Europe or the United States, and ranged in duration from 4 to 52 weeks. They compared insulin glargine with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin given once or twice daily in >5000 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, or in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes that was poorly controlled by oral antidiabetic agents. Insulin doses were individually titrated to achieve a target FBG level < or =120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L). The studies were typically statistically underpowered to detect a significant difference in HbA(1c) between treatment groups; only 3 trials were of an adequate size to have 90% statistical power to detect a mean 0.5% difference in HbA(1c). Furthermore, analysis of the data from these trials was associated with a number of methodologic problems relating to inconsistencies in reporting. Given these limitations, the available data suggest that insulin glargine treatment produces statistically significant reductions in FPG or FBG levels at end point both compared with baseline and compared with NPH insulin (P < 0.001) without achieving overall significant improvements in HbA(1c) values. However, a recent abstract of a small 52-week trial in patients with type 1 diabetes reported a 0.4% additional decrease in HbA(1c) with insulin glargine treatment compared with NPH insulin. Patients have reported greater treatment satisfaction with insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin. The findings varied regarding weight gain, overall incidence of hypoglycemia, and incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia. Currently, the cost of insulin glargine is twice that of NPH insulin on a per-unit basis.
As a basal insulin replacement, insulin glargine administered once daily demonstrates a steady time-action profile over 24 hours without a pronounced peak. Based on the evidence from published clinical trials, insulin glargine appears to have equal clinical efficacy to NPH insulin, produces similar reductions in HbA(1c), and is associated with lower FPG and FBG levels and a consistent and significant reduction in the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.
甘精胰岛素是首个长效基础胰岛素类似物,适用于1型或2型糖尿病成人患者及年龄≥6岁的1型糖尿病儿童患者,每日一次于睡前皮下注射。它在结构上与天然人胰岛素有3个氨基酸不同,这种结构修饰使其起效延迟,具有持续、无峰值的作用,作用持续时间至少24小时。
本文旨在通过回顾自甘精胰岛素上市以来所有已发表的有效性和耐受性数据,帮助确定其在治疗中的当前地位。
通过检索1966年至2002年10月的MEDLINE、PubMed和EMBASE以及2002年11月的PREMEDLINE来识别相关英文文章。使用的检索词为胰岛素、类似物、糖尿病、甘精胰岛素、HOE901、HOE - 901、有效性、安全性、对比研究、治疗结果和病例报告。对已识别文章的参考文献列表进行检索以查找其他相关出版物。对药代动力学和药效学数据进行回顾和总结。本综述纳入了所有评估甘精胰岛素在1型或2型糖尿病患者中有效性和耐受性的大型临床试验(≥100例患者)。根据研究设计、主要和次要有效性参数(糖化血红蛋白[HbA(1c)]、空腹血糖[FPG]和/或空腹血糖[FBG]水平、低血糖发生率)以及耐受性评估对研究进行比较。
14项试验符合本综述的纳入标准,其中7项仅以摘要形式发表。所有试验均为在欧洲或美国进行的多中心、随机、开放标签、平行组试验,持续时间为4至52周。这些试验在5000多名1型或2型糖尿病患者或口服抗糖尿病药物控制不佳的2型糖尿病初治患者中,将甘精胰岛素与每日注射一次或两次的中性精蛋白锌胰岛素(NPH胰岛素)进行比较。胰岛素剂量根据个体情况进行滴定,以达到目标空腹血糖水平≤120mg/dL(6.7mmol/L)。这些研究通常在统计学上没有足够的效力来检测治疗组之间HbA(1c)的显著差异;只有3项试验规模足够大,有90%的统计学效力来检测HbA(1c)平均0.5%的差异。此外,对这些试验数据的分析存在一些与报告不一致相关的方法学问题。鉴于这些局限性,现有数据表明,与基线相比以及与NPH胰岛素相比,甘精胰岛素治疗在终点时使FPG或FBG水平有统计学显著降低(P<0.001),但未使HbA(1c)值总体有显著改善。然而,最近一项针对1型糖尿病患者的小型52周试验摘要报告称,与NPH胰岛素相比,甘精胰岛素治疗使HbA(1c)额外降低了0.4%。与NPH胰岛素相比,患者报告对甘精胰岛素的治疗满意度更高。关于体重增加、低血糖总体发生率和夜间低血糖发生率的研究结果各不相同。目前,单位剂量甘精胰岛素的成本是NPH胰岛素的两倍。
作为基础胰岛素替代药物,每日一次注射甘精胰岛素在24小时内呈现稳定的时间 - 作用曲线,无明显峰值。根据已发表临床试验的证据来看,甘精胰岛素似乎具有与NPH胰岛素同等的临床疗效,使HbA(1c)有类似降低,并且与较低的FPG和FBG水平相关,同时使2型糖尿病患者夜间低血糖发生率持续且显著降低。