...
首页> 外文期刊>Experimental and clinical endocrinology and diabetes: Official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association >Comparison of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus under outpatient-clinic conditions for 18 months using a basal-bolus regimen with a rapid-acting insulin analogue as mealtime insulin.
【24h】

Comparison of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus under outpatient-clinic conditions for 18 months using a basal-bolus regimen with a rapid-acting insulin analogue as mealtime insulin.

机译:使用快速反应的胰岛素类似物作为进餐时胰岛素的基础推注方案比较门诊患者在18个月的2型糖尿病患者中的甘精胰岛素和NPH胰岛素。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

AIMS: To assess the effects of a structured in-patient diabetes training programme in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus on a basal-bolus regimen using insulin glargine or NPH insulin and rapid-acting insulin analogues with respect to glycaemic control, weight development and incidence of hypoglycaemia in an outpatient-clinic setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-randomized, single centre, comparative observational study including 119 subjects. Pre-study treatment was a basal-bolus regimen with NPH insulin and a rapid-acting insulin analogue. Subjects either continued with NPH insulin (n=56) or were switched over to insulin glargine (n=63) at the discretion of the investigator (aiming at equal numbers in each group). Patients then attended routine out-patient follow up visits for 18 months. RESULTS: HbA1c in the insulin glargine group improved statistically significant by -0.49%; [95%CI, -0.26, -0.71; p<0.001; HbA1c at endpoint 6.95+/-0.71%], whereas in the NPH group the reduction by -0.12% [95%CI, -0.31, 0.06; p=0.189; HbA1c at endpoint 7.22+/-0.74%] was statistically not significant. After 18 months of treatment the difference between treatment groups was 0.37% (p<0.015). Mean weight gain was significantly higher in the NPH group than in the glargine group (2.1 vs. 0.25 kg; p=0.025). A lower risk of hypoglycaemia in the glargine group (0.50 vs. 0.71 episodes/patient/month) did not reach statistical significance (p=0.081). CONCLUSIONS: Following a structured in-patient diabetes training programme glycaemic control in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus on a basal-bolus regimen improved significantly only with insulin glargine suggesting that training alone may not be sufficient to further improve metabolic control in relatively well controlled patients on NPH insulin. Therefore, in addition to a structured training programme also the insulin regimen should be optimized, e.g. by introduction of an insulin analogue.
机译:目的:评估针对2型糖尿病患者的结构化住院糖尿病培训计划对使用甘精胰岛素或NPH胰岛素和速效胰岛素类似物的基础推注方案在血糖控制,体重发展和发生率方面的影响门诊诊所环境中的低血糖患者与方法:这是一项前瞻性,非随机,单中心,比较观察性研究,包括119名受试者。研究前的治疗是采用NPH胰岛素和速效胰岛素类似物的基础推注方案。受试者要么继续服用NPH胰岛素(n = 56),要么根据研究者的判断(每组相等)转为甘精胰岛素(n = 63)。然后,患者接受例行门诊随访18个月。结果:甘精胰岛素组的HbA1c改善了-0.49%,具有统计学显着性。 [95%CI,-0.26,-0.71; p <0.001; HbA1c在终点6.95 +/- 0.71%],而在NPH组中下降了-0.12%[95%CI,-0.31,0.06; p = 0.189;在终点7.22​​ +/- 0.74%处的HbA1c在统计学上不显着。治疗18个月后,治疗组之间的差异为0.37%(p <0.015)。 NPH组的平均体重增加显着高于甘精胰岛素组(2.1 vs. 0.25 kg; p = 0.025)。甘精胰岛素组低血糖的风险较低(0.50 vs. 0.71例/患者/月)未达到统计学显着性(p = 0.081)。结论:在一项结构化的住院患者糖尿病培训计划中,仅使用甘精胰岛素可以显着改善基础推注方案对2型糖尿病患者的血糖控制,这表明,单独进行培训可能不足以进一步改善相对控制良好的患者的代谢控制服用NPH胰岛素。因此,除了有条理的训练计划外,还应优化胰岛素治疗方案,例如通过引入胰岛素类似物。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号