Suppr超能文献

在基础-餐时胰岛素方案中,将门冬胰岛素作为餐时胰岛素,比较地特胰岛素和甘精胰岛素治疗 1 型糖尿病患者的 52 周、多国、随机、开放标签、平行组、治疗达标非劣效性试验。

Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen, with insulin aspart as the mealtime insulin, in patients with type 1 diabetes: a 52-week, multinational, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target noninferiority trial.

机构信息

Diabetes Centre, Clinical Sciences Centre, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Clin Ther. 2009 Oct;31(10):2086-97. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.10.006.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The primary study objective was to determine whether insulin detemir (detemir) was noninferior to insulin glargine (glargine) as the basal insulin in a basal-bolus regimen, with insulin aspart as the mealtime insulin, in terms of glycemic control at the end of 52 weeks in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

This multinational, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target, noninferiority trial enrolled patients aged > or = 18 years who had had T1DM for at least 12 months, had been taking a basal-bolus insulin regimen for at least 3 months, and had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value < or = 11.0% at screening. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either detemir or glargine for 52 weeks. The basal insulin was initially administered once daily (in the evening) in both groups; if patients in the detemir group were achieving the plasma glucose (PG) target before breakfast but not before dinner, they were switched to twice-daily administration. Glargine was administered once daily throughout the trial, according to its approved labeling. Each patient attended 13 study visits and received 16 scheduled telephone calls from the trial site. The primary efficacy end point was glycemic control (HbA1c) after 52 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included the number of patients achieving an HbA1c value < or = 7.0%, with or without a major hypoglycemic episode in the last month of treatment; fasting PG (FPG); within-patient variation in self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) before breakfast and dinner; and 10-point SMPG profiles. The noninferiority margin was 0.4%, consistent with US Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-three patients (mean [SD] age, 42 [12] years; body mass index, 26.5 [4.0] kg/m2; duration of diabetes, 17.2 [11.4] years; HbA1c, 8.1% [1.1%]) received study treatment. After 52 weeks, the estimated mean HbA1c did not differ significantly between the detemir and glargine groups (7.57% and 7.56%, respectively; mean difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.16), consistent with the noninferiority of detemir to glargine. The corresponding estimated changes in HbA1c were -0.53% and -0.54%. In the 90 patients who completed the trial on once-daily detemir and the 173 patients who completed the trial on twice-daily detemir, the estimated changes in HbA1c were -0.49% and -0.58%, respectively. After 52 weeks, there were no significant differences in the proportions of those receiving detemir and glargine who achieved an HbA1c value < or = 7.0% without major hypoglycemia (31.9% and 28.9%, respectively). In addition, there were no significant differences in estimated mean FPG (8.58 and 8.81 mmol/L; mean difference, -0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.58) or in basal insulin doses. The basal insulin dose was numerically higher in patients receiving detemir twice rather than once daily (0.47 vs 0.33 U/kg, respectively). The relative risks for total and nocturnal hypoglycemia with detemir versus glargine were 0.94 and 1.12, respectively (both, P = NS). Six patients (2.0%) randomized to the detemir group and 4 (2.7%) randomized to the glargine group withdrew due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

During 52 weeks of basal-bolus therapy in patients with T1DM, detemir was noninferior to glargine in terms of overall glycemic control (HbA1c). When used according to the approved labeling, detemir and glargine did not differ in tolerability or in terms of the occurrence of hypoglycemia.

摘要

目的

本主要研究目的是确定在患有 1 型糖尿病(T1DM)的患者中,52 周时,以糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)为终点,与甘精胰岛素相比,作为基础胰岛素的地特胰岛素(detemir)在基础-餐时胰岛素方案中是否具有非劣效性,其中餐时胰岛素为门冬胰岛素。

方法

这项多中心、开放标签、平行组、靶向治疗、非劣效性试验纳入了年龄≥18 岁、患有 T1DM 至少 12 个月、至少接受 3 个月基础-餐时胰岛素方案治疗且在筛选时糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)值<11.0%的患者。患者以 2:1 的比例随机分为两组,分别接受地特胰岛素或甘精胰岛素治疗 52 周。两组患者的基础胰岛素均为每晚 1 次给药;如果地特胰岛素组患者在早餐前但不在晚餐前达到血浆葡萄糖(PG)目标,则改为每日 2 次给药。整个试验期间,甘精胰岛素根据其批准的标签规定每日给药 1 次。每位患者就诊 13 次,接受试验点安排的 16 次电话随访。主要疗效终点为治疗 52 周后的血糖控制(HbA1c)。次要终点包括达到 HbA1c 值<或=7.0%的患者比例,其中最后 1 个月有无重大低血糖事件;空腹 PG(FPG);早餐和晚餐前自我监测血浆葡萄糖(SMPG)的患者内变异度;以及 10 点 SMPG 谱。非劣效性边界为 0.4%,符合美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)的指南。

结果

共有 443 名患者(平均[标准差]年龄 42[12]岁;体重指数 26.5[4.0]kg/m2;糖尿病病程 17.2[11.4]年;HbA1c 8.1%[1.1%])接受了研究治疗。52 周后,地特胰岛素组和甘精胰岛素组的估计平均 HbA1c 无显著差异(分别为 7.57%和 7.56%;平均差值 0.01%;95%置信区间,-0.13 至 0.16),表明地特胰岛素与甘精胰岛素具有非劣效性。相应的 HbA1c 估计变化为-0.53%和-0.54%。在完成每日 1 次地特胰岛素治疗的 90 名患者和完成每日 2 次地特胰岛素治疗的 173 名患者中,HbA1c 的估计变化分别为-0.49%和-0.58%。52 周后,接受地特胰岛素和甘精胰岛素治疗且无重大低血糖事件的患者中,HbA1c 值<或=7.0%的比例无显著差异(分别为 31.9%和 28.9%)。此外,估计的平均 FPG(8.58 和 8.81mmol/L;平均差值,-0.23mmol/L;95%置信区间,-1.04 至 0.58)或基础胰岛素剂量也无显著差异。接受地特胰岛素每日 2 次治疗的患者的基础胰岛素剂量高于接受每日 1 次治疗的患者(分别为 0.47 和 0.33U/kg)。与甘精胰岛素相比,地特胰岛素发生总低血糖和夜间低血糖的相对风险分别为 0.94 和 1.12(均 P=NS)。6 名(2.0%)随机分配至地特胰岛素组的患者和 4 名(2.7%)随机分配至甘精胰岛素组的患者因不良事件退出。

结论

在患有 T1DM 的患者中,52 周基础-餐时胰岛素治疗期间,地特胰岛素在总体血糖控制(HbA1c)方面与甘精胰岛素不具有非劣效性。根据批准的标签使用时,地特胰岛素和甘精胰岛素在耐受性方面或低血糖事件的发生方面没有差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验