Testa Marcia A, Simonson Donald C
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Diabetes Care. 2007 Jun;30(6):1399-405. doi: 10.2337/dc06-1497. Epub 2007 Mar 2.
We sought to compare and evaluate the impact of inhaled versus injected insulin on potential mediators of patient acceptance of insulin therapy while maintaining comparable A1C levels.
During a noninferiority efficacy trial conducted in 40 centers in the U.S., we surveyed treatment satisfaction, quality of life, and adherence barriers at weeks -4, -1, 6, 12, 20, and 24 in adolescents aged 12-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes who received premeal regular plus twice-daily NPH insulin during a 4-week run-in; then, subjects were randomized to premeal inhaled human insulin plus twice-daily NPH (adults, n = 102; adolescents, n = 60) (inhaled) or remaining on run-in therapy (n = 105 and 60, respectively) (subcutaneous injection).
Overall treatment satisfaction (0-100) increased by 13.2 +/- 1.1 units for inhaled insulin (baseline = 63.3 +/- 1.2) compared with 1.7 +/- 0.8 for subcutaneous insulin injection (baseline = 64.1 +/- 1.2, P < 0.0001). All 12 satisfaction subscales favored inhaled insulin (all P < 0.01), and effects did not vary by age or sex. Despite similar baseline-adjusted end point A1C for inhaled (7.7 +/- 0.1%) and subcutaneous (7.9 +/- 0.1%) regimens, quality-of-life scales of mental health, symptoms, health status, cognitive functioning, and adherence barriers during treatment were more favorable for inhaled insulin (all P < 0.05). Greater satisfaction was associated with fewer barriers to insulin adherence (rho = -0.78, P < 0.0001) and a greater reduction in A1C (rho = -0.18, P < 0.001).
Treatment satisfaction was substantially more favorable, adherence barriers moderately lower, and quality of life moderately higher for inhaled compared with subcutaneous regimen. It remains to be demonstrated whether these patient-reported outcomes will translate into improved adherence and glycemic control.
我们试图比较并评估吸入式胰岛素与注射式胰岛素对胰岛素治疗患者接受度的潜在介导因素的影响,同时维持糖化血红蛋白(A1C)水平相当。
在美国40个中心进行的一项非劣效性疗效试验中,我们对年龄在12 - 17岁的青少年和1型糖尿病成人患者在为期4周的导入期接受餐前常规胰岛素加每日两次中效胰岛素治疗期间,于第-4、-1、6、12、20和24周调查治疗满意度、生活质量和依从性障碍;然后,将受试者随机分为餐前吸入人胰岛素加每日两次中效胰岛素(成人,n = 102;青少年,n = 60)(吸入组)或继续进行导入期治疗(分别为n = 105和60)(皮下注射组)。
与皮下胰岛素注射组(基线 = 64.1 ± 1.2,P < 0.0001)相比,吸入式胰岛素组的总体治疗满意度(0 - 100)提高了13.2 ± 1.1个单位(基线 = 63.3 ± 1.2)。所有12个满意度子量表均支持吸入式胰岛素(所有P < 0.01),且效果不因年龄或性别而异。尽管吸入式(7.7 ± 0.1%)和皮下注射式(7.9 ± 0.1%)治疗方案经基线调整后的终点糖化血红蛋白水平相似,但吸入式胰岛素在心理健康、症状、健康状况、认知功能和治疗期间的依从性障碍等生活质量量表方面表现更优(所有P < 0.05)。更高的满意度与胰岛素依从性障碍较少(rho = -0.78,P < 0.0001)以及糖化血红蛋白降低幅度更大(rho = -0.18,P < 0.001)相关。
与皮下注射方案相比,吸入式方案的治疗满意度显著更高,依从性障碍适度更低,生活质量适度更高。这些患者报告结果是否会转化为更好的依从性和血糖控制仍有待证实。