Corresponding author: Dario Giugliano,
Diabetes Care. 2014 Feb;37(2):372-80. doi: 10.2337/dc12-2704. Epub 2013 Oct 29.
We compared two strategies initiating and intensifying insulin treatment and tested for noninferiority of premixed insulin to basal ± mealtime insulin analog in patients eating light breakfasts.
This randomized, open-label, 48-week study compared two algorithms. Up to three injections of insulin lispro mix 25 and/or insulin lispro mix 50 (premix; premixed insulin lispro) or basal insulin glargine plus up to three injections of insulin lispro (basal+; glargine + insulin lispro) were used in type 2 diabetic patients uncontrolled with oral antihyperglycemic medication and consuming <15% daily calories at breakfast. The hypothesis was to test noninferiority of premix to basal+ for glycemic control measured by HbA1c after 48 weeks, assessed using ANCOVA with a 0.4% margin.
Patients (n = 344; 176 [51%] females; mean [SD] age 54.3 [8.8] years; BMI 29.4 [4.6] kg/m(2); baseline HbA1c 9.02 [0.97]%) were randomized to premix (n = 171) or basal+ (n = 173). In the per-protocol analysis (n = 230), least squares means (95% CI) end point HbA1c were 7.40% (7.15-7.65) and 7.55% (7.27-7.82) in respective arms. Between-treatment difference was -0.14% (-0.42 to 0.13), with noninferiority met. Significantly more patients in premix achieved HbA1c targets of <7.0% compared with basal+ (48.2 vs. 36.2%; P = 0.024). Self-monitored blood glucose profiles, body weight changes, total insulin doses, and overall hypoglycemia (65 vs. 60%) were similar in premix and basal+ (P = 0.494), except nocturnal episodes (34.3 vs. 23.7%; P = 0.018) were more common in premix.
Both intensive insulin strategies improved glycemic control; however, final HbA1c levels were seen above those achieved in previous treat-to-target trials, likely due to the inadequate insulin titrations and probably due to the complexity of tested insulin regimens. A higher percentage of patients achieved target HbA1c <7% with multiple premixed insulins, but this treatment resulted in more nocturnal hypoglycemia than a basal-bolus regimen.
我们比较了两种起始和强化胰岛素治疗策略,并检验了在早餐进食少量食物的患者中,预混胰岛素与基础餐时胰岛素类似物相比是否不劣效。
这是一项随机、开放标签、48 周的研究,比较了两种方案。对于血糖控制不佳的 2 型糖尿病患者,在口服降糖药物治疗的基础上,给予每日早餐热量摄入<15%的情况下,最多使用三种胰岛素赖脯混合同工 25 和/或胰岛素赖脯混合同工 50(预混;预混胰岛素赖脯)或基础胰岛素甘精和最多三种胰岛素赖脯(基础+;甘精+胰岛素赖脯)注射。假设 48 周后用糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)评估时,预混方案不劣效于基础+方案,使用具有 0.4%边界的协方差分析(ANCOVA)进行评估。
共纳入 344 例患者(176 例[51%]女性;平均[标准差]年龄 54.3[8.8]岁;体重指数 29.4[4.6]kg/m2;基线 HbA1c 9.02[0.97]%),随机分为预混组(n=171)或基础+组(n=173)。在符合方案分析(n=230)中,最小二乘均值(95%可信区间)终点 HbA1c 分别为 7.40%(7.15-7.65)和 7.55%(7.27-7.82)。治疗间差异为-0.14%(-0.42 至 0.13),达到非劣效性。与基础+相比,预混组有更多患者达到 HbA1c<7.0%的目标(48.2% vs. 36.2%;P=0.024)。预混组和基础+组自我监测血糖谱、体重变化、总胰岛素剂量和总体低血糖(65% vs. 60%;P=0.494)相似,除外夜间发作(34.3% vs. 23.7%;P=0.018)更常见于预混组。
两种强化胰岛素治疗方案均改善了血糖控制;然而,最终的 HbA1c 水平高于之前的达标治疗试验,可能是由于胰岛素剂量调整不足,也可能是由于所测试胰岛素方案的复杂性所致。更多的患者通过使用多种预混胰岛素达到目标 HbA1c<7%,但这种治疗导致夜间低血糖的发生率高于基础餐时胰岛素方案。