Suppr超能文献

二代及其他基础胰岛素在成年 1 型糖尿病患者中的疗效和安全性:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Efficacy and safety among second-generation and other basal insulins in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Osaka University, 1-6 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.

Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.

出版信息

Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2021 Oct;394(10):2091-2101. doi: 10.1007/s00210-021-02128-9. Epub 2021 Jul 28.

Abstract

We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of second-generation basal insulins (glargine U300 and degludec U100) vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation basal insulins (glargine U100 and detemir) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) adults.PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar (until January 2021) were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ≥ 12 weeks of follow-up comparing efficacy (HbA) or safety (hypoglycemia and weight gain) between second-generation basal insulins vs. other basal insulins in T1D adults were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses were used to estimate risk ratio, hazard ratio, and mean difference. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to appraise evidence certainty.Eighteen RCTs (≥ 24 weeks of follow-up) involving 7283 randomized participants were included for main analysis. Moderate to high certainty evidence suggested that second-generation basal insulins showed equivalent HbA reduction compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins. Compared with second-generation basal insulins, low to high certainty evidence suggested that NPH was associated with a higher risk of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia; NPH and first-generation basal insulins were associated with a higher rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemic events. For the weight gain, glargine U300 was comparable to detemir (low certainty), but degludec U100 was greater than detemir (moderate certainty).In conclusion, second-generation basal insulins maintained equivalent efficacy of glycemic control (moderate to high certainty), with differences in safety (low to high certainty) compared with NPH and first-generation basal insulins during ≥ 24 weeks of follow-up in T1D adults.

摘要

我们旨在评估第二代基础胰岛素(甘精 U300 和德谷胰岛素 U100)与中性鱼精蛋白 Hagedorn(NPH)和第一代基础胰岛素(甘精 U100 和地特胰岛素)在 1 型糖尿病(T1D)成人中的疗效和安全性。系统检索了 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 Google Scholar(截至 2021 年 1 月)。纳入了比较第二代基础胰岛素与其他基础胰岛素在 T1D 成人中疗效(HbA1c)或安全性(低血糖和体重增加)的随访时间≥12 周的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析估计风险比、危害比和均数差。采用推荐评估、制定与评价分级(GRADE)评估证据确定性。主要分析纳入了 18 项 RCT(随访时间≥24 周),共 7283 名随机参与者。中等至高度确定性证据表明,第二代基础胰岛素与 NPH 和第一代基础胰岛素相比,HbA1c 降低效果相当。与第二代基础胰岛素相比,低到高确定性证据表明,NPH 与患者发生严重低血糖的风险较高相关;NPH 和第一代基础胰岛素与夜间确诊低血糖事件的发生率较高相关。对于体重增加,甘精 U300 与地特胰岛素相当(低确定性),但德谷胰岛素 U100 大于地特胰岛素(中等确定性)。总之,第二代基础胰岛素在 24 周以上的随访期间,在血糖控制方面具有等效的疗效(中等至高度确定性),但在安全性方面存在差异(低至高确定性),与 NPH 和第一代基础胰岛素相比。

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