Suppr超能文献

诺和笔3与注射器/药瓶在口服降糖药继发性失效的2型糖尿病患者胰岛素治疗接受度方面的比较

Comparison of NovoPen 3 and syringes/vials in the acceptance of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents.

作者信息

Kadiri A, Chraibi A, Marouan F, Ababou M R, el Guermai N, Wadjinny A, Kerfati A, Douiri M, Bensouda J D, Belkhadir J, Arvanitis Y

机构信息

Service d'Endocrinologie, Diabétologie, Nutrition, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Avicenne, Rabat, Morocco.

出版信息

Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1998 Jul;41(1):15-23. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8227(98)00055-2.

Abstract

This open, randomised, cross-over study compared the acceptance and safety of NovoPen 3 with that of conventional syringes and vials when initiating insulin treatment in 96 NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents. These patients had not previously been treated with insulin. All patients used each insulin administration system for 12 weeks. Group A started therapy using NovoPen 3 and crossed over to syringe/vial administration; Group B started with syringe/vial administration followed by NovoPen 3. In total, 78 patients completed the study. Most patients in Group A initially found the insulin injections very easy or easy and many of those who found injections easy at first found them very easy by the end of week 12. During the first period, patients in Group B found insulin administration more difficult than those in Group A. Injection pain was significantly lower with NovoPen 3 than with syringes and vials (P = 0.0018). Patients in Group B reported a significantly lower level of injection pain after the switch to using NovoPen 3 (P = 0.0003). Acceptance of insulin injections was significantly higher by patients using NovoPen 3 than by those using syringes and vials (P = 0.0059). Setting and drawing up the dose of insulin was also easier for patients using NovoPen 3 (P = 0.0490). At the end of the study, most patients (89.5% (68/76 replies)) said that they preferred NovoPen 3 to syringes and vials. Glycaemic control improved compared with baseline after starting insulin therapy, with no differences between Groups A and B, or between the two injection systems. The number of reported hypoglycaemic episodes was very low and was not significantly different between Groups A and B, or between the two administration systems. No treatment-related adverse events were reported. We conclude that use of NovoPen 3 provides better acceptance of insulin injection than use of conventional syringes and vials during initiation of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to treatment with oral hypoglycaemic agents.

摘要

这项开放性、随机、交叉研究比较了诺和笔3(NovoPen 3)与传统注射器和药瓶在96例口服降糖药继发性失效的非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病(NIDDM)患者开始胰岛素治疗时的接受度和安全性。这些患者此前未接受过胰岛素治疗。所有患者均使用每种胰岛素给药系统12周。A组开始使用诺和笔3进行治疗,之后交叉使用注射器/药瓶给药;B组开始使用注射器/药瓶给药,之后使用诺和笔3。共有78例患者完成了研究。A组的大多数患者最初觉得胰岛素注射非常容易或容易,而且许多一开始觉得注射容易的患者在第12周结束时觉得注射非常容易。在第一阶段,B组患者觉得胰岛素给药比A组患者更困难。使用诺和笔3时的注射疼痛明显低于使用注射器和药瓶时(P = 0.0018)。B组患者在改用诺和笔3后报告的注射疼痛水平明显更低(P = 0.0003)。使用诺和笔3的患者对胰岛素注射的接受度明显高于使用注射器和药瓶的患者(P = 0.0059)。使用诺和笔3的患者设置和抽取胰岛素剂量也更容易(P = 0.0490)。在研究结束时,大多数患者(89.5%(68/76份回复))表示他们更喜欢诺和笔3而不是注射器和药瓶。开始胰岛素治疗后,血糖控制与基线相比有所改善,A组和B组之间或两种注射系统之间没有差异。报告的低血糖发作次数非常少,A组和B组之间或两种给药系统之间没有显著差异。未报告与治疗相关的不良事件。我们得出结论,在口服降糖药治疗继发性失效的NIDDM患者开始胰岛素治疗期间,使用诺和笔3比使用传统注射器和药瓶能更好地被接受。

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