Misso Marie L, Egberts Kristine J, Page Matthew, O'Connor Denise, Shaw Jonathan
Australasian Cochrane Centre, Monash Institute of Health Services Research, Monash University, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20(1):CD005103. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005103.pub2.
Type 1 diabetes is a metabolic disorder resulting from a defect in insulin secretion. Onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus may occur at any age and it is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood and adolescence. Since there are no interventions known to prevent onset, it is vital that effective treatment regimes are available. Glycaemic control is maintained by replacement of insulin and may be in the form of 'conventional' insulin therapy (multiple injections per day) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII).
To assess the effects of CSII compared to multiple insulin injections (MI) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Studies were obtained from electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL.
Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials comparing CSII with three or more insulin injections per day (MI) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted characteristics of included studies. Authors contacted study investigators to obtain missing information. Generic inverse variance meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed.
Twenty three studies randomised 976 participants with type 1 diabetes to either intervention. There was a statistically significant difference in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) favouring CSII (weighted mean difference -0.3% (95% confidence interval -0.1 to -0.4). There were no obvious differences between the interventions for non-severe hypoglycaemia, but severe hypoglycaemia appeared to be reduced in those using CSII. Quality of life measures suggest that CSII is preferred over MI. No significant difference was found for weight. Adverse events were not well reported, no information is available on mortality, morbidity and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that CSII may be better than MI for glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Non-severe hypoglycaemic events do not appear to be reduced with CSII. There is insufficient evidence regarding adverse events, mortality, morbidity and costs.
1型糖尿病是一种由于胰岛素分泌缺陷导致的代谢紊乱疾病。1型糖尿病可在任何年龄发病,是儿童和青少年时期最常见的慢性病之一。由于尚无已知的预防发病的干预措施,因此提供有效的治疗方案至关重要。通过补充胰岛素来维持血糖控制,其形式可以是“传统”胰岛素治疗(每天多次注射)或持续皮下胰岛素输注(CSII)。
评估1型糖尿病患者中持续皮下胰岛素输注(CSII)与多次胰岛素注射(MI)相比的效果。
通过对考克兰图书馆、MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL进行电子检索获取研究。
纳入的研究需为随机对照试验,比较1型糖尿病患者中CSII与每天三次或更多次胰岛素注射(MI)。
两位作者独立评估偏倚风险并提取纳入研究的特征。作者联系研究调查人员以获取缺失信息。采用随机效应模型进行通用逆方差荟萃分析。
23项研究将976名1型糖尿病参与者随机分为两种干预措施。糖化血红蛋白A1c(HbA1c)方面存在统计学显著差异,支持CSII(加权平均差 -0.3%(95%置信区间 -0.1至 -0.4))。非严重低血糖方面,两种干预措施无明显差异,但使用CSII的患者严重低血糖似乎有所减少。生活质量测量表明,与MI相比,CSII更受青睐。体重方面未发现显著差异。不良事件报告不充分,关于死亡率、发病率和成本没有可用信息。
有一些证据表明,在1型糖尿病患者的血糖控制方面,CSII可能优于MI。CSII似乎并未减少非严重低血糖事件。关于不良事件、死亡率、发病率和成本的证据不足。