Abraira C, Colwell J A, Nuttall F Q, Sawin C T, Nagel N J, Comstock J P, Emanuele N V, Levin S R, Henderson W, Lee H S
Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, Hines, Illinois, USA.
Diabetes Care. 1995 Aug;18(8):1113-23. doi: 10.2337/diacare.18.8.1113.
It is not clear whether intensive pharmacological therapy can be effectively sustained in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). The relative risks and benefits of intensive insulin therapy in NIDDM are not well defined. Accordingly, we designed a feasibility study that compared standard therapy and intensive therapy in a group of NIDDM men who required insulin due to sustained hyperglycemia.
A prospective trial was conducted in five medical centers in 153 men of 60 +/- 6 years of age who had a known diagnosis of diabetes for 7.8 +/- 4 years. They were randomly assigned to a standard insulin treatment group (one morning injection per day) or to an intensive therapy group designed to attain near-normal glycemia and a clinically significant separation of glycohemoglobin from the standard arm. A four-step plan was used in the intensive therapy group along with daily self-monitoring of glucose: 1) an evening insulin injection, 2) the same injection adding daytime glipizide, 3) two injections of insulin alone, and 4) multiple daily injections. Patient accrual and adherence, glycohemoglobin (HbA1c), side effects, and measurements of endpoints for a prospective long-term trial were assessed.
Accrual goals were met, mean follow-up time was 27 months (range 18-35 months), and patients kept 98.6% of scheduled visits. After 6 months, the mean HbA1c in the intensive therapy group was at or below 7.3% and remained 2% lower than the standard group for the duration of the trial. Most of the decrease in the mean HbA1c in the intensive group was obtained by a single injection of evening intermediate insulin, alone or with daytime glipizide. By the end of the trial, 64% of the patients had advanced to two or more injections of insulin a day, aiming for normal HbA1c. However, only a small additional fall in HbA1c was attained. Severe hypoglycemia was rare (two events per 100 patients per year) and not significantly different between the groups, nor were changes in weight, blood pressure, or plasma lipids. There were 61 new cardiovascular events in 40 patients and 10 deaths (6 due to cardiovascular causes).
Intense stepped insulin therapy in NIDDM patients who have failed glycemic control on pharmacological therapy is effective in maintaining near-normal glycemic control for > 2 years without excessive severe hypoglycemia, weight gain, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Cardiovascular event rates are high at this stage of NIDDM. A long-term prospective trial is needed to assess the risk-benefit ratio of intensified treatment of hyperglycemia in NIDDM patients requiring insulin.
尚不清楚强化药物治疗能否在非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病(NIDDM)患者中有效维持。强化胰岛素治疗在NIDDM中的相对风险和益处尚未明确界定。因此,我们设计了一项可行性研究,比较标准治疗和强化治疗对一组因持续性高血糖而需要胰岛素治疗的NIDDM男性患者的效果。
在五个医疗中心对153名60±6岁的男性进行了一项前瞻性试验,这些患者已知患有糖尿病7.8±4年。他们被随机分配到标准胰岛素治疗组(每日晨注一次)或强化治疗组,强化治疗组旨在实现血糖接近正常,并使糖化血红蛋白与标准组有临床显著差异。强化治疗组采用四步方案并每日自我监测血糖:1)晚间胰岛素注射;2)在同一注射中添加日间格列吡嗪;3)单独两次胰岛素注射;4)每日多次注射。评估了患者的纳入情况和依从性、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、副作用以及前瞻性长期试验终点指标的测量情况。
达到了纳入目标,平均随访时间为27个月(范围18 - 35个月),患者按时就诊率为98.6%。6个月后,强化治疗组的平均HbA1c达到或低于7.3%,在试验期间一直比标准组低2%。强化组平均HbA1c的下降大多通过单次晚间中效胰岛素注射实现,单独使用或与日间格列吡嗪联合使用。到试验结束时,64%的患者已进展为每日注射两次或更多次胰岛素,目标是使HbA1c正常。然而,HbA1c仅出现了少量额外下降。严重低血糖很少见(每年每100名患者发生两例),两组之间无显著差异,体重、血压或血脂也无变化。40名患者发生了61起新的心血管事件,10人死亡(6人死于心血管原因)。
对于药物治疗血糖控制不佳的NIDDM患者,强化阶梯式胰岛素治疗可有效维持血糖接近正常水平超过2年,且不会出现过多严重低血糖、体重增加、高血压或血脂异常。在NIDDM的这个阶段,心血管事件发生率较高。需要进行一项长期前瞻性试验来评估在需要胰岛素治疗的NIDDM患者中强化血糖治疗的风险效益比。