4.7 Article

Reduced hypoglycemia risk with insulin glargine - A metaanalysis comparing insulin glargine with human NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 950-955

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.4.950

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - insulin glargine (LANTUS) is a once-daily basal insulin analog with a smooth 24-h time-action profile that provides effective glycemic control with reduced hypoglycemia risk (particularly nocturnal) compared with NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. A recent treat-to-target study has shown that more patients on insulin glargine reached HbA(1c) levels <= 7.0% without confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin. We further assessed the risk for hypoglycemia in a meta-analysis of controlled trials of a similar design for insulin glargine versus once- or twice-daily NPH insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - All studies were 24-28 weeks long, except one 52-week study, for which interim 20-week data were used. RESULTS - Patient demographics were similar between the insulin glargine (n = 1, 142) and NPH insulin (n = 1,162) groups. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA(1c) (<= 7.0%) was similar between insulin glargine- and NPH insulin-treated patients (30.8 and 32.1%, respectively). There was a consistent significant reduction of hypoglycemia risk associate wit insulin glargine, compared with NPH insulin, in terms of overall symptomatic (11%; P = 0.0006) and nocturnal (26%; P < 0.0001) hypoglycemia. Most notably, the risk of severe hypoglycemia and severe nocturnal hypoglycemia were reduced with insulin glargine by 46% (P = 0.0442) and 59% (P = 0.0231), respectively. CONCLUSIONS - These results confirmed that insulin glargine given once daily reduces the risk of hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin, which can facilitate more aggressive insulin treatment to a HbA(1c) target of <= 7.0% in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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

4.7
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