4.4 Review

Insulin glargine and receptor-mediated signalling: Clinical implications in treating type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 593-599

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.776

关键词

insulin glargine; insulin analogues; IGF-1; type 2 diabetes mellitus; mitogenicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus will eventually require insulin therapy to achieve or maintain adequate glycaemic control. The introduction of insulin analogues, with pharmacokinetics that more closely mimic endogenous insulin secretion, has made physiologic insulin replacement. easier to achieve for many patients. However there are also concerns, regarding alteration of binding affinities for the insulin receptor (IR) or insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) may increase the mitogenic potential of some analogues. Therefore, this article will review the relevant preclinical and clinical data to assess the mitogenic potential of insulin glargine, a basal insulin analogue, compared with regular human insulin (RHI). Searches of the PubMed database were performed using terms that included 'IR,' 'insulin-like growth factor-1,' 'IGF-1R,' 'type 2 diabetes mellitus,' and 'insulin glargine.' Original articles and reviews of published literature were retrieved and reviewed. Although one study reported increased binding affinity of insulin glargine for the IGF-1R and increased mitogenic potential in cells with excess IGF-1Rs (Saos/B10 osteosarcoma cells), most in vitro binding-affinity and cell-culture studies have demonstrated behaviour of insulin glargine comparable to that of RHI for both IR and IGF-1R binding, insulin signalling, and metabolic and mitogenic potential. Currently published in vivo carcinogenic studies and human clinical trial data have shown that insulin glargine is not associated with increased risk for either cancer or the development or progression of diabetic retinopathy. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据