Department of Internal Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011 Jun;13(6):607-14. doi: 10.1089/dia.2010.0224. Epub 2011 Apr 2.
In a previous pilot study comparing insulin glulisine (GLU) with insulin aspart (ASP) administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), GLU-treated patients did show a trend toward fewer catheter occlusions compared with ASP-treated patients. Here we performed a randomized open-label, three-way crossover, controlled multicenter study comparing GLU with ASP and insulin lispro (LIS).
Subjects with type 1 diabetes were allocated to one of three treatment orders-GLU-ASP-LIS, ASP-LIS-GLU, or LIS-GLU-ASP-with each insulin used for 13 weeks. The study was designed to demonstrate the superiority of GLU over ASP and LIS on unexplained hyperglycemia and/or perceived infusion set occlusion. A prespecified P value of 0.025 was considered significant to correct for multiple testing.
Percentages of subjects with at least one unexplained hyperglycemia and/or infusion set occlusion were not significantly different between GLU and ASP (68.4% [62.7-74.1%] vs. 62.1% [56.2-68.1%], P = 0.04) and GLU and LIS (68.4% [62.7-74.1%] vs. 61.3% [55.4-67.3%], P = 0.03). No differences were seen in hemoglobin A1c at end point, most points of the seven-point glucose curves, severe hypoglycemia, and symptomatic ketoacidosis. The overall rate of hypoglycemia with a plasma glucose level below 70 mg/dL per patient-year was significantly different between GLU and ASP (73.84 vs. 65.01, P = 0.008) and GLU and LIS (73.84 vs. 62.69, P < 0.001). Insulin doses remained unchanged during the trial.
GLU was not superior to ASP and LIS with no significant difference seen among GLU, ASP, and LIS in CSII use with respect to unexplained hyperglycemia and/or perceived catheter set occlusion. GLU was associated with a higher frequency of symptomatic hypoglycemia, possibly because of slight overdosing, as previous trials suggested lower insulin requirements when GLU is initiated in type 1 diabetes.
在之前一项比较速效胰岛素类似物门冬胰岛素(ASP)和赖脯胰岛素(LIS)经持续皮下胰岛素输注(CSII)治疗的初步研究中,GLU 治疗组患者与 ASP 治疗组患者相比,导管堵塞的发生率有降低的趋势。在此,我们进行了一项随机、开放标签、三交叉、对照的多中心研究,比较 GLU 与 ASP 和 LIS 的疗效。
1 型糖尿病患者被分配到三种治疗顺序中的一种-GLU-ASP-LIS、ASP-LIS-GLU 或 LIS-GLU-ASP-每种胰岛素治疗 13 周。该研究旨在证明 GLU 在不明原因高血糖和/或感知输注装置堵塞方面优于 ASP 和 LIS。为了校正多次检验,预先设定 P 值为 0.025 为显著差异。
GLU 和 ASP 组(68.4%[62.7-74.1%]与 62.1%[56.2-68.1%],P=0.04)和 GLU 和 LIS 组(68.4%[62.7-74.1%]与 61.3%[55.4-67.3%])之间不明原因高血糖和/或输注装置堵塞的患者比例无显著差异,P=0.03)。终点时血红蛋白 A1c、七点血糖曲线的大部分点、严重低血糖和症状性酮症酸中毒均无差异。GLU 和 ASP 组(73.84 与 65.01,P=0.008)和 GLU 和 LIS 组(73.84 与 62.69,P<0.001)之间,每个患者年血浆葡萄糖水平低于 70mg/dL 的低血糖发生率差异有统计学意义。胰岛素剂量在试验期间保持不变。
GLU 与 ASP 和 LIS 相比无优势,在 CSII 使用方面,GLU、ASP 和 LIS 之间在不明原因高血糖和/或感知导管堵塞方面无显著差异。GLU 与症状性低血糖的发生率较高有关,可能是由于轻微过量,因为之前的试验表明在 1 型糖尿病中开始使用 GLU 时胰岛素需要量较低。