Duckworth William, Davis Stephen N
Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85012, USA.
J Diabetes Complications. 2007 May-Jun;21(3):196-204. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2007.01.001.
Despite the evidence-based approach to management of Type 2 diabetes outlined in current diabetes practice guidelines, a large proportion of patients are achieving suboptimal glycemic control. A substantial amount of data exists comparing insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin for long-acting basal insulin coverage. The objective of this systematic review was to provide a balanced appraisal of existing clinical evidence and to determine the appropriate step in therapy for insulin glargine or NPH insulin. Relevant English language articles from 1996 to 2005 were identified through searches of the National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed database. Search terms included neutral protamine Hagedorn, NPH, insulin glargine, insulin therapy, Type 2 diabetes, insulin analogs, HOE901, and HOE-901. Studies were compared regarding designs, primary and secondary efficacy parameters, glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (A1C), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), incidence of hypoglycemia, and other safety assessments. Six original multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trials conducted in Europe or the United States, ranging in duration from 4 to 52 weeks, met the inclusion criteria. Two additional analyses represented a subanalysis and a study extension. All of the studies compared insulin glargine with NPH insulin given once or twice daily as monotherapy or in conjunction with oral antidiabetic agents in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Based on available evidence, insulin glargine has shown equal clinical efficacy to that of NPH insulin and similar reductions in A1C and is associated with similar or lower FPG levels. Recent studies also have demonstrated that less frequent nocturnal hypoglycemia incidence is associated with insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin. The known pathophysiology of Type 2 diabetes and the need for basal insulin treatment are presented as rationale for comparison of these insulins.
尽管当前糖尿病实践指南中概述了基于循证医学的2型糖尿病管理方法,但仍有很大一部分患者的血糖控制未达最佳水平。有大量数据比较了甘精胰岛素和中性精蛋白锌胰岛素(NPH胰岛素)用于长效基础胰岛素覆盖的情况。本系统评价的目的是对现有临床证据进行全面评估,并确定甘精胰岛素或NPH胰岛素治疗的合适步骤。通过检索美国国立生物技术信息中心的PubMed数据库,确定了1996年至2005年的相关英文文章。检索词包括中性精蛋白锌胰岛素、NPH、甘精胰岛素、胰岛素治疗、2型糖尿病、胰岛素类似物、HOE901和HOE - 901。对研究的设计、主要和次要疗效参数、糖化血红蛋白A1c(A1C)、空腹血糖(FPG)、低血糖发生率及其他安全性评估进行了比较。六项在欧洲或美国进行的、为期4至52周的原始多中心、随机、开放标签、平行组试验符合纳入标准。另外两项分析分别为亚组分析和研究扩展。所有研究均比较了甘精胰岛素与每日一次或两次给予的NPH胰岛素,作为2型糖尿病患者的单一疗法或与口服抗糖尿病药物联合使用。基于现有证据,甘精胰岛素已显示出与NPH胰岛素同等的临床疗效,A1C降低程度相似,且FPG水平相似或更低。最近的研究还表明,与NPH胰岛素相比,甘精胰岛素夜间低血糖发生率更低。介绍了2型糖尿病的已知病理生理学以及基础胰岛素治疗的必要性,作为比较这些胰岛素的理论依据。