Bolli Geremia B, Kerr David, Thomas Reena, Torlone Elisabetta, Sola-Gazagnes Agnès, Vitacolonna Ester, Selam Jean Louis, Home Philip D
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul;32(7):1170-6. doi: 10.2337/dc08-1874. Epub 2009 Apr 23.
Insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) and multiple daily injections (MDIs) with insulin glargine as basal insulin and mealtime insulin lispro have not been prospectively compared in people naïve to either regimen in a multicenter study. We aimed to help close that deficiency.
People with type 1 diabetes on NPH-based insulin therapy were randomized to CSII or glargine-based MDI (both otherwise using lispro) and followed for 24 weeks in an equivalence design. Fifty people were correctly randomized, and 43 completed the study.
Total insulin requirement (mean +/- SD) at end point was 36.2 +/- 11.5 units/day on CSII and 42.6 +/- 15.5 units/day on MDI. Mean A1C fell similarly in the two groups (CSII -0.7 +/- 0.7%; MDI -0.6 +/- 0.8%) with a baseline-adjusted difference of -0.1% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.3). Similarly, fasting blood glucose and other preprandial, postprandial, and nighttime self-monitored plasma glucose levels did not differ between the regimens, nor did measures of plasma glucose variability. On CSII, 1,152 hypoglycemia events were recorded by 23 of 28 participants (82%) and 1,022 in the MDI group by 27 of 29 patients (93%) (all hypoglycemia differences were nonsignificant). Treatment satisfaction score increased more with CSII; however, the change in score was similar for the groups. Costs were approximately 3.9 times higher for CSII.
In unselected people with type 1 diabetes naïve to CSII or insulin glargine, glycemic control is no better with the more expensive CSII therapy compared with glargine-based MDI therapy.
在一项多中心研究中,尚未对胰岛素泵治疗(持续皮下胰岛素输注[CSII])与使用甘精胰岛素作为基础胰岛素、餐时胰岛素赖脯胰岛素的多次皮下注射(MDIs)进行前瞻性比较,而这两种治疗方案的适用对象均为之前未使用过其中任何一种方案的人群。我们旨在弥补这一不足。
接受中效胰岛素治疗的1型糖尿病患者被随机分为CSII组或基于甘精胰岛素的MDI组(两组均使用赖脯胰岛素),并采用等效性设计进行为期24周的随访。50人被正确随机分组,43人完成了研究。
终点时,CSII组的总胰岛素需求量(均值±标准差)为36.2±11.5单位/天,MDI组为42.6±15.5单位/天。两组的平均糖化血红蛋白(A1C)下降情况相似(CSII组降低0.7±0.7%;MDI组降低0.6±0.8%),基线调整后的差异为-0.1%(95%置信区间为-0.5至0.3)。同样,空腹血糖以及其他餐前、餐后和夜间自我监测的血浆葡萄糖水平在两种治疗方案之间没有差异,血浆葡萄糖变异性指标也无差异。在CSII组,28名参与者中的23人(82%)记录了1152次低血糖事件,MDI组29名患者中的27人(93%)记录了1022次低血糖事件(所有低血糖差异均无统计学意义)。CSII组的治疗满意度得分提升更多;然而,两组得分的变化相似。CSII的成本约为MDI的3.9倍。
在未经过筛选、之前未使用过CSII或甘精胰岛素的1型糖尿病患者中,与基于甘精胰岛素的MDI治疗相比,更昂贵的CSII治疗在血糖控制方面并无优势。