Umpierrez Guillermo E, Jones Sidney, Smiley Dawn, Mulligan Patrick, Keyler Trevor, Temponi Angel, Semakula Crispin, Umpierrez Denise, Peng Limin, Cerón Miguel, Robalino Gonzalo
Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul;32(7):1164-9. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0169. Epub 2009 Apr 14.
To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin analogs and human insulins both during acute intravenous treatment and during the transition to subcutaneous insulin in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
In a controlled multicenter and open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with DKA to receive intravenous treatment with regular or glulisine insulin until resolution of DKA. After resolution of ketoacidosis, patients treated with intravenous regular insulin were transitioned to subcutaneous NPH and regular insulin twice daily (n = 34). Patients treated with intravenous glulisine insulin were transitioned to subcutaneous glargine once daily and glulisine before meals (n = 34).
There were no differences in the mean duration of treatment or in the amount of insulin infusion until resolution of DKA between intravenous treatment with regular and glulisine insulin. After transition to subcutaneous insulin, there were no differences in mean daily blood glucose levels, but patients treated with NPH and regular insulin had a higher rate of hypoglycemia (blood glucose <70 mg/dl). Fourteen patients (41%) treated with NPH and regular insulin had 26 episodes of hypoglycemia and 5 patients (15%) in the glargine and glulisine group had 8 episodes of hypoglycemia (P = 0.03).
Regular and glulisine insulin are equally effective during the acute treatment of DKA. A transition to subcutaneous glargine and glulisine after resolution of DKA resulted in similar glycemic control but in a lower rate of hypoglycemia than with NPH and regular insulin. Thus, a basal bolus regimen with glargine and glulisine is safer and should be preferred over NPH and regular insulin after the resolution of DKA.
比较胰岛素类似物与人胰岛素在糖尿病酮症酸中毒(DKA)患者急性静脉治疗期间及向皮下胰岛素转换过程中的安全性和疗效。
在一项对照多中心开放标签试验中,我们将DKA患者随机分配接受常规胰岛素或谷赖胰岛素静脉治疗,直至DKA缓解。酮症酸中毒缓解后,接受静脉常规胰岛素治疗的患者转换为每日两次皮下注射中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素(NPH)和常规胰岛素(n = 34)。接受静脉谷赖胰岛素治疗的患者转换为每日一次皮下注射甘精胰岛素及餐时皮下注射谷赖胰岛素(n = 34)。
在常规胰岛素和谷赖胰岛素静脉治疗至DKA缓解期间,平均治疗持续时间或胰岛素输注量无差异。转换为皮下胰岛素后,平均每日血糖水平无差异,但接受NPH和常规胰岛素治疗的患者低血糖发生率更高(血糖<70 mg/dl)。接受NPH和常规胰岛素治疗的14例患者(41%)发生26次低血糖事件,甘精胰岛素和谷赖胰岛素组的5例患者(15%)发生8次低血糖事件(P = 0.03)。
常规胰岛素和谷赖胰岛素在DKA急性治疗期间同样有效。DKA缓解后转换为皮下注射甘精胰岛素和谷赖胰岛素导致血糖控制相似,但低血糖发生率低于NPH和常规胰岛素。因此,DKA缓解后,甘精胰岛素和谷赖胰岛素的基础-餐时方案更安全,应优于NPH和常规胰岛素。