Wang C, Mamza J, Idris I
Division of Medical Sciences & Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, UK.
Diabet Med. 2015 May;32(5):585-94. doi: 10.1111/dme.12694. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
We aim to evaluate the effects of biphasic insulin compared with a basal bolus insulin regimen on glycaemic control, total daily insulin requirements, risk of hypoglycaemia, weight and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies up to November 2013. Interventions that lasted for more than four weeks and were reported in English were considered for the review. Meta-analysis was performed on eligible studies.
Fifteen randomized controlled trial studies, involving 4384 patients, were included. Greater HbA1c reductions were seen with basal-bolus compared with biphasic insulin regimens, between-treatment weighted mean difference (WMD) for baseline-to-endpoint changes in HbA1c was -0.2% (95% CI: -0.36 to -0.03) [-2.2 (-3.9, -0.3) mmol/mol]. In non-insulin naïve (n = 8) patients with Type 2 diabetes, HbA1c reduction was greater in the basal bolus group; WMD = -0.22% (95% CI: -0.42 to -0.02) [-2.4 (-4.6, -0.2) mmol/mol], but in insulin naïve patients (n = 5), HbA1c was equivalent between the two regimens; WMD (-0.15% (95% CI: -0.52 to 0.22) [-1.6 (-5.7, 2.4) mmol/mol]. Total daily insulin requirements and weight were increased with both regimens, whereas hypoglycaemia rates were comparable between the two regimens. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in the basal bolus group compared with the biphasic regimen at the expense of higher daily insulin requirements and weight gain, but with no greater risk of hypoglycaemia.
Biphasic and basal bolus regimens were equally effective in reducing HbA1c in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 diabetes and both regimens are equally effective for initiating insulin in Type 2 diabetes.
我们旨在评估双相胰岛素与基础-餐时胰岛素方案相比,对糖尿病患者血糖控制、每日胰岛素总需求量、低血糖风险、体重及生活质量的影响。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、PubMed和Scopus数据库中截至2013年11月的研究。纳入持续时间超过四周且以英文报道的干预措施进行综述。对符合条件的研究进行荟萃分析。
纳入15项随机对照试验研究,涉及4384例患者。与双相胰岛素方案相比,基础-餐时胰岛素方案使糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)降低幅度更大,HbA1c从基线到终点变化的组间加权平均差(WMD)为-0.2%(95%置信区间:-0.36至-0.03)[-2.2(-3.9,-0.3)mmol/mol]。在既往未使用胰岛素的2型糖尿病患者(n = 8)中,基础-餐时组HbA1c降低幅度更大;WMD = -0.22%(95%置信区间:-0.42至-0.02)[-2.4(-4.6,-0.2)mmol/mol],但在既往未使用胰岛素的患者(n = 5)中,两种方案的HbA1c相当;WMD为-0.15%(95%置信区间:-0.52至0.22)[-1.6(-5.7,2.4)mmol/mol]。两种方案均使每日胰岛素总需求量和体重增加,而两种方案的低血糖发生率相当。与双相胰岛素方案相比,基础-餐时组HbA1c降低幅度更大,但代价是每日胰岛素需求量更高和体重增加,且低血糖风险并未增加。
双相胰岛素方案和基础-餐时胰岛素方案在既往未使用胰岛素的2型糖尿病患者中降低HbA1c的效果相当,且两种方案在2型糖尿病患者起始胰岛素治疗时同样有效。