4.3 Article

Insulin detemir lowers the risk of hypoglycaemia and provides more consistent plasma glucose levels compared with NPH insulin in Type 1 diabetes

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 729-735

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01862.x

关键词

hypoglycaemia; insulin aspart; insulin detemir; Type 1 diabetes; within-person variation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Hypoglycaemia remains a major barrier preventing optimal glycaemic control in Type 1 diabetes due to the limitations of conventional insulin preparations. We investigated whether basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir (detemir), a new soluble basal insulin analogue, was more effective in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with NPH insulin (NPH). Methods In this multinational, open-label, cross-over trial, 130 individuals with Type 1 diabetes received detemir and NPH twice daily in a randomized order in combination with premeal insulin aspart (IAsp) during two 16-week treatment periods. Risk of hypoglycaemia was based on self-measured plasma glucose (SMPG) and self-reported episodes during the last 10 weeks of each period. Results Risk of nocturnal and overall hypoglycaemia was, respectively, 50% and 18% lower with detemir than with NPH (P < 0.001). A total of 19 severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred during treatment with detemir compared with 33 with NPH (NS). HbA(1c) decreased by 0.3% point with both treatments and was comparable at 7.6% (+/- SEM 0.06%, 95% confidence interval -0.106, 0.108) after 16 weeks with similar doses of basal insulin. Within-person variation in mean plasma glucose was lower with detemir than with NPH (SD 3.00 vs. 3.33, P < 0.001), as was prebreakfast SMPG (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Detemir was associated with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with NPH at similar HbA(1c) when used in combination with mealtime IAsp. The more consistent plasma glucose levels observed with detemir may allow people to aim for tighter glycaemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

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

4.3
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