Suppr超能文献

1型糖尿病成人患者的基础胰岛素治疗方案:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Dawoud Dalia, O'Mahony Rachel, Wonderling David, Cobb Jill, Higgins Bernard, Amiel Stephanie A

机构信息

National Guideline Centre, Royal College of Physicians, London, United Kingdom; Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Value Health. 2018 Feb;21(2):176-184. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.024. Epub 2017 Jun 20.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials comparing two or more basal insulin regimens were conducted. The following basal insulin regimens were included: Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (iNPH) (once [od], twice [bid], and four times daily [qid]), insulin detemir (iDet) (od and bid), insulin glargine 100 IU (iGlarg) (od), and insulin degludec (iDegl) (od). We searched the following databases: MEDLINE via OVID, Embase via OVID, and the Cochrane Library (Wiley). Study quality was appraised using Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist for randomized controlled trials. Two outcomes (change in hemoglobin A [HbA] and rate of severe/major hypoglycemia [SH]) were analyzed. Network inconsistency was assessed using Bucher and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Thirty studies met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-five were included in the HbA network and 16 in the SH network. All studies were of moderate quality. No network inconsistency was evident in the HbA network. Of the seven regimens of interest, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being best (mean change in HbA -0.48; 95% credible interval -0.69 to -0.29). In contrast, the SH network demonstrated both considerable uncertainty and significant network inconsistency (χ test, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the specified frequency regimens, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being the best basal insulin regimen in terms of reduction in HbA. Ranking of the regimens in terms of the SH rate was highly uncertain and no clear conclusion could be made.

摘要

目的

评估基础胰岛素方案在1型糖尿病(T1DM)成人患者中的相对疗效和安全性。

方法

对比较两种或更多种基础胰岛素方案的随机对照试验进行系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析(NMA)。纳入以下基础胰岛素方案:中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素(NPH)(每日1次[od]、每日2次[bid]和每日4次[qid])、地特胰岛素(iDet)(od和bid)、甘精胰岛素100 IU(iGlarg)(od)和德谷胰岛素(iDegl)(od)。我们检索了以下数据库:通过OVID检索MEDLINE、通过OVID检索Embase以及Cochrane图书馆(Wiley)。使用Cochrane随机对照试验偏倚风险清单评估研究质量。分析了两个结局(糖化血红蛋白[HbA]变化和严重/重度低血糖[SH]发生率)。使用Bucher检验和卡方检验评估网络不一致性。

结果

30项研究符合纳入标准。25项纳入HbA网络分析,16项纳入SH网络分析。所有研究质量中等。HbA网络中未发现明显的网络不一致性。在7种感兴趣的方案中,iDet(bid)最有可能是最佳方案(HbA平均变化-0.48;95%可信区间-0.69至-0.29)。相比之下,SH网络显示出相当大的不确定性和显著的网络不一致性(卡方检验,P = 0.003)。

结论

在指定的给药频率方案中,就降低HbA而言,iDet(bid)最有可能是最佳的基础胰岛素方案。根据SH发生率对方案进行排序存在高度不确定性,无法得出明确结论。

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