Singh Sumeet R, Ahmad Fida, Lal Avtar, Yu Changhua, Bai Zemin, Bennett Heather
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ont.
CMAJ. 2009 Feb 17;180(4):385-97. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081041.
Although insulin analogues are commonly prescribed for the management of diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty regarding their optimal use. We conducted meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of insulin analogues with conventional insulins in the treatment of type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes.
We updated 2 earlier systematic reviews of the efficacy and safety of rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues. We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and "grey literature" up to April 2007 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared insulin analogues with conventional insulins. Study populations of interest were people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (adult and pediatric) and women with gestational diabetes.
We included 68 randomized controlled trials in the analysis of rapid-acting insulin analogues and 49 in the analysis of long-acting insulin analogues. Most of the studies were of short to medium duration and of low quality. In terms of hemoglobin A1c, we found minimal differences between rapid-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.09%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.16% to -0.02%; for insulin aspart: -0.13%, 95% CI -0.20% to -0.07%). We observed similar outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.03%, 95% CI -0.12% to -0.06%; for insulin aspart: -0.09%, 95% CI -0.21% to 0.04%). Differences between long-acting insulin analogues and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in terms of hemoglobin A1c were marginal among adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.11%, 95% CI -0.21% to -0.02%; for insulin detemir: -0.06%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.02%) and among adults with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.05%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.04%; for insulin detemir: 0.13%, 95% CI 0.03% to 0.22%). Benefits in terms of reduced hypoglycemia were inconsistent. There were insufficient data to determine whether insulin analogues are better than conventional insulins in reducing long-term diabetes-related complications or death.
Rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues offer little benefit relative to conventional insulins in terms of glycemic control or reduced hypoglycemia. Long-term, high-quality studies are needed to determine whether insulin analogues reduce the risk of long-term complications of diabetes.
尽管胰岛素类似物常用于糖尿病的治疗,但关于其最佳使用方法仍存在不确定性。我们进行了荟萃分析,以比较胰岛素类似物与传统胰岛素在治疗1型、2型和妊娠期糖尿病方面的疗效。
我们更新了2篇关于速效和长效胰岛素类似物疗效和安全性的早期系统评价。检索了截至2007年4月的电子数据库、会议论文集和“灰色文献”,以确定比较胰岛素类似物与传统胰岛素的随机对照试验。感兴趣的研究人群为1型和2型糖尿病患者(成人和儿童)以及妊娠期糖尿病女性。
我们在速效胰岛素类似物分析中纳入了68项随机对照试验,在长效胰岛素类似物分析中纳入了49项。大多数研究的持续时间为短期至中期,质量较低。在糖化血红蛋白方面,我们发现1型糖尿病成人中速效胰岛素类似物与常规人胰岛素之间差异极小(赖脯胰岛素的加权平均差异:-0.09%,95%置信区间[CI]-0.16%至-0.02%;门冬胰岛素:-0.13%,95%CI-0.20%至-0.07%)。在2型糖尿病患者中我们观察到了类似的结果(赖脯胰岛素的加权平均差异:-0.03%,95%CI-0.12%至-0.06%;门冬胰岛素:-0.09%,95%CI-0.21%至0.04%)。在1型糖尿病成人(甘精胰岛素的加权平均差异:-0.11%,95%CI-0.21%至-0.02%;地特胰岛素:-0.06%,95%CI-0.13%至0.02%)和2型糖尿病成人(甘精胰岛素的加权平均差异:-0.05%,95%CI-0.13%至0.04%;地特胰岛素:0.13%,95%CI0.03%至0.22%)中,长效胰岛素类似物与中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素在糖化血红蛋白方面的差异很小。在降低低血糖发生率方面的益处并不一致。没有足够的数据来确定胰岛素类似物在降低长期糖尿病相关并发症或死亡方面是否优于传统胰岛素。
速效和长效胰岛素类似物在血糖控制或降低低血糖发生率方面相对于传统胰岛素几乎没有优势。需要长期、高质量的研究来确定胰岛素类似物是否能降低糖尿病长期并发症的风险。