Suppr超能文献

用于治疗囊性纤维化相关糖尿病的药物疗法。

Drug treatments for managing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes.

作者信息

Onady Gary M, Stolfi Adrienne

机构信息

Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA.

Department of Pediatrics, Children's Medical Center, Dayton, Ohio, USA.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD004730. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004730.pub5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation recommends both short-term and long-acting insulin therapy when cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) has been diagnosed. Diagnosis is based on: an elevated fasting blood glucose level greater than 6.94 mmol/L (125 mg/dL); or oral glucose tolerance tests greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) at two hours; or symptomatic diabetes for random glucose levels greater than 11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL); or glycated hemoglobin levels of at least 6.5%. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness of insulin and oral agents for managing diabetes in people with cystic fibrosis in relation to blood sugar levels, lung function and weight management.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also handsearched abstracts from pulmonary symposia and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conferences. Date of most recent register search: 10 September 2020. We searched online trials registries; date of most recent searches: 21 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing all methods of pharmacological diabetes therapy in people with diagnosed CFRD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Authors also used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 29 trials (45 references). Four included trials provide results: one short-term single-center cross-over trial (seven adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and no medication in adults with CFRD and normal fasting glucose; one long-term multicenter trial (61 adults with CFRD) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide and placebo; one long-term multicenter trial (67 adults) comparing insulin with oral repaglinide; and one 12-week single-center cross-over trial (20 adults) comparing the long-acting insulin glargine to short-term neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Two ongoing trials of newly approved incretin mimics have been noted for possible future inclusion. Downgrading of the quality of the evidence was mainly due to risks of bias across all domains, but particularly due to concerns surrounding allocation concealment and selective reporting. There were also some concerns due to imprecision from small sample sizes and low event rates. Finally, there may be some bias due to the amounts of insulin and repaglinide given not being comparable. Data from one trial comparing insulin to placebo (39 participants) did not show any difference between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) or nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences between groups were seen for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or quality of life (QoL). These results were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial in this comparison (seven participants). Data from the one-year trial comparing repaglinide to placebo (38 participants), showed no differences between groups for the primary outcomes of blood glucose levels (very low-quality evidence), lung function (low-quality evidence) and nutritional status (low-quality evidence). Also, no differences were seen between groups for the secondary outcomes of number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence), secondary infection complications or QoL. These findings were mirrored in the narrative reports for the second trial (n = 7) in this comparison. Three trials compared insulin to repaglinide (119 participants). Data from one trial (n = 67) showed no difference in blood glucose levels at either 12 months (high-quality evidence) or 24 months; narrative reports from one trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups, but the second trial (7 participants) reported a beneficial effect of insulin over repaglinide. Two trials (112 participants) found no difference between insulin and repaglinide in lung function or nutritional status (moderate-quality evidence). Two trials (56 participants) reported no difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes (low-quality evidence). One trial (45 participants) reported no difference between groups in secondary infections and cystic fibrosis QoL. The single trial comparing glargine to neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin did not report directly on the review's primary outcomes, but did report no differences between groups in post-prandial glucose values and weight; neither group reported infectious complications. There was no difference in episodes of hypoglycemia (very low-quality evidence) and while there was no difference reported in QoL, all participants opted to continue treatment with glargine after the trial was completed. Mortality was not reported by any trial in any comparison, but death was not given as a reason for withdrawal in any trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has not found any conclusive evidence that any agent has a distinct advantage over another in controlling hyperglycemia or the clinical outcomes associated with CFRD. Given the treatment burden already experienced by people with cystic fibrosis, oral therapy may be a viable treatment option. While some cystic fibrosis centers use oral medications to help control diabetes, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (USA) clinical practice guidelines support the use of insulin therapy and this remains the most widely-used treatment method. Randomized controlled trials specifically related to controlling diabetes and its impact on the course of pulmonary disease process in cystic fibrosis continue to be a high priority. Specifically, investigators should evaluate adherence to different therapies and also whether there is benefit in using additional hypoglycemic agents as well as the newly approved incretin mimics. Agents that potentiate insulin action, especially agents with additional anti-inflammatory potential should also be further investigated as adjuvant therapy to insulin.

摘要

背景

囊性纤维化基金会建议,当诊断出患有囊性纤维化相关糖尿病(CFRD)时,采用短期和长效胰岛素疗法。诊断依据为:空腹血糖水平高于6.94 mmol/L(125 mg/dL);或口服葡萄糖耐量试验两小时后高于11.11 mmol/L(200 mg/dL);或有症状性糖尿病,随机血糖水平高于11.11 mmol/L(200 mg/dL);或糖化血红蛋白水平至少为6.5%。这是对先前发表综述的更新。

目的

确定胰岛素和口服药物在控制囊性纤维化患者糖尿病方面,与血糖水平、肺功能和体重管理相关的有效性。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane囊性纤维化和遗传疾病小组的试验注册库,其中包括从全面的电子数据库检索、相关期刊的手工检索以及会议论文摘要集中识别出的参考文献。我们还手工检索了肺部研讨会和北美囊性纤维化会议的摘要。最新注册库检索日期:2020年9月10日。我们检索了在线试验注册库;最新检索日期:2020年3月21日。

入选标准

比较已诊断CFRD患者所有药物性糖尿病治疗方法的随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

两位作者独立提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。作者还使用GRADE评估证据质量。

主要结果

检索共识别出29项试验(45篇参考文献)。四项纳入试验提供了结果:一项短期单中心交叉试验(7名成年人),比较胰岛素与口服瑞格列奈以及未用药对空腹血糖正常的CFRD成年患者的影响;一项长期多中心试验(61名CFRD成年患者),比较胰岛素与口服瑞格列奈和安慰剂;一项长期多中心试验(67名成年人),比较胰岛素与口服瑞格列奈;以及一项为期12周的单中心交叉试验(20名成年人),比较长效甘精胰岛素与短效中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素。已注意到两项正在进行的关于新批准的肠促胰岛素类似物的试验,可能在未来纳入。证据质量降级主要是由于所有领域的偏倚风险,但特别是由于分配隐藏和选择性报告方面的问题。此外,由于样本量小和事件发生率低导致的不精确性也存在一些问题。最后,由于给予的胰岛素和瑞格列奈量不可比,可能存在一些偏倚。一项比较胰岛素与安慰剂(39名参与者)的试验数据显示,在血糖水平(极低质量证据)、肺功能(低质量证据)或营养状况(低质量证据)的主要结局方面,两组之间没有差异。同样,在低血糖发作次数(低质量证据)、继发感染并发症或生活质量(QoL)的次要结局方面,两组之间也没有差异。这些结果在该比较中第二项试验的叙述性报告(7名参与者)中得到了印证。一项比较瑞格列奈与安慰剂的一年期试验(38名参与者)数据显示,在血糖水平(极低质量证据)、肺功能(低质量证据)和营养状况(低质量证据)的主要结局方面,两组之间没有差异。此外,在低血糖发作次数(低质量证据)、继发感染并发症或QoL的次要结局方面,两组之间也没有差异。这些发现在该比较中第二项试验(n = 7)的叙述性报告中得到了印证。三项试验比较了胰岛素与瑞格列奈(119名参与者)。一项试验(n = 67)的数据显示,在12个月(高质量证据)或24个月时血糖水平没有差异;一项试验(45名参与者)的叙述性报告称两组之间没有差异,但第二项试验(7名参与者)报告胰岛素优于瑞格列奈。两项试验(112名参与者)发现胰岛素与瑞格列奈在肺功能或营养状况方面没有差异(中等质量证据)。两项试验(56名参与者)报告低血糖发作次数没有差异(低质量证据)。一项试验(45名参与者)报告两组在继发感染和囊性纤维化QoL方面没有差异。比较甘精胰岛素与中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素的单项试验未直接报告综述的主要结局,但确实报告两组在餐后血糖值和体重方面没有差异;两组均未报告感染并发症。低血糖发作次数没有差异(极低质量证据),虽然在QoL方面没有差异报告,但所有参与者在试验完成后都选择继续使用甘精胰岛素治疗。任何比较中的任何试验均未报告死亡率,但任何试验中均未将死亡作为退出的原因。

作者结论

本综述未发现任何确凿证据表明,在控制高血糖或与CFRD相关的临床结局方面,任何药物比其他药物具有明显优势。鉴于囊性纤维化患者已经承受的治疗负担,口服治疗可能是一种可行的治疗选择。虽然一些囊性纤维化中心使用口服药物来帮助控制糖尿病,但美国囊性纤维化基金会的临床实践指南支持使用胰岛素疗法,这仍然是使用最广泛的治疗方法。专门针对控制糖尿病及其对囊性纤维化肺部疾病进程影响的随机对照试验仍然是高度优先事项。具体而言,研究人员应评估对不同疗法的依从性,以及使用额外的降糖药物以及新批准的肠促胰岛素类似物是否有益。增强胰岛素作用的药物,特别是具有额外抗炎潜力的药物,也应作为胰岛素的辅助疗法进行进一步研究。

相似文献

1
Drug treatments for managing cystic fibrosis-related diabetes.用于治疗囊性纤维化相关糖尿病的药物疗法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD004730. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004730.pub5.
7
Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for cystic fibrosis.补充ω-3脂肪酸治疗囊性纤维化
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 10;4(4):CD002201. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002201.pub6.

引用本文的文献

3
The Changing Landscape of Treatment for Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes.囊性纤维化相关糖尿病治疗的不断变化格局
J Clin Transl Endocrinol. 2024 Feb 28;35:100332. doi: 10.1016/j.jcte.2024.100332. eCollection 2024 Mar.

本文引用的文献

2
Cystic fibrosis and insulin therapy: a reality check.囊性纤维化与胰岛素治疗:现实审视
Diabet Med. 2019 Nov;36(11):1360-1364. doi: 10.1111/dme.13959. Epub 2019 Apr 24.
7
Pioglitazone and the Risk of Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.吡格列酮与膀胱癌风险:一项荟萃分析
Diabetes Ther. 2017 Aug;8(4):705-726. doi: 10.1007/s13300-017-0273-4. Epub 2017 Jun 16.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验