Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Similar Glycaemic Control (similar + glycaemic_control)
Selected AbstractsInsulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: what is the evidence?DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM, Issue 5 2009Mariëlle J. P. Van Avendonk Aim:, To systematically review the literature regarding insulin use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus Methods:, A Medline and Embase search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in English between 1 January 2000 and 1 April 2008, involving insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The RCTs must comprise at least glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial plasma glucose and /or fasting blood glucose (FBG)) and hypoglycaemic events as outcome measurements. Results:, The Pubmed search resulted in 943 hits; the Embase search gave 692 hits. A total of 116 RCTs were selected by title or abstract. Eventually 78 trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies were very diverse and of different quality. They comprised all possible insulin regimens with and without combination with oral medication. Continuing metformin and/or sulphonylurea after start of therapy with basal long-acting insulin results in better glycaemic control with less insulin requirements, less weight gain and less hypoglycaemic events. Long-acting insulin analogues in combination with oral medication are associated with similar glycaemic control but fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared with NPH insulin. Most of the trials demonstrated better glycaemic control with premix insulin therapy than with a long-acting insulin once daily, but premix insulin causes more hypoglycaemic episodes. Analogue premix provides similar HbA1c, but lower postprandial glucose levels compared with human premix, without increase in hypoglycaemic events or weight gain. Drawing conclusions from the limited number of studies concerning basal,bolus regimen seems not possible. Some studies showed that rapid-acting insulin analogues frequently result in a better HbA1c or postprandial glucose without increase of hypoglycaemia than regular human insulin. Conclusion:, A once-daily basal insulin regimen added to oral medication is an ideal starting point. All next steps, from one to two or even more injections per day should be taken very carefully and in thorough deliberation with the patient, who has to comply with such a regimen for many years. [source] Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension and insulin detemir in basal-bolus therapy in patients with Type 1 diabetesDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 5 2010A. R. Chacra Diabet. Med. 27, 563,569 (2010) Abstract Aims, The efficacy of two basal insulins, insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) and insulin detemir, was compared in basal-bolus regimens in Type 1 diabetes. Methods, In this 32-week, multinational, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial, adult patients with Type 1 diabetes received ILPS or insulin detemir, injected twice daily (before breakfast and bedtime) and prandial insulin lispro three times daily. The primary outcome was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to endpoint. Results, Least squares mean (±se) changes in HbA1c were similar between groups, meeting non-inferiority (margin, 0.4%): ,0.69 ± 0.07% for ILPS and ,0.59 ± 0.07% for insulin detemir [between-treatment difference ,0.10%; 95% confidence interval (CI) ,0.29, 0.10]. Standard deviation of fasting blood glucose was similar (non-inferiority margin 0.8 mmol/l): 2.74 ± 0.14 mmol/l for ILPS and 2.38 ± 0.14 mmol/l for insulin detemir (CI ,0.03, 0.75). Patients on ILPS gained more weight (1.59 ± 0.23 kg vs. 0.62 ± 0.24 kg; CI 0.34, 1.60; margin 1.5 kg). Weight-adjusted daily total and prandial insulin doses were lower for ILPS (prandial insulin, 0.38 ± 0.01 U/kg/day for ILPS, 0.44 ± 0.01 U/kg/day for insulin detemir; P = 0.004); daily basal insulin dose was similar. All hypoglycaemia incidence and rate and nocturnal hypoglycaemia incidence were similar between groups; nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was lower for insulin detemir (mean ± sd 0.79 ± 1.23 for ILPS, 0.49 ± 0.85 for insulin detemir; P = 0.001). Severe hypoglycaemia rate was 0.03 ± 0.11 for ILPS and 0.02 ± 0.10 for insulin detemir (P = 0.37). Conclusions, ILPS-treated patients with Type 1 diabetes achieved similar glycaemic control as insulin detemir-treated patients after 32 weeks. Glucose variability was similar. While weight gain and nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate were statistically higher with ILPS, the clinical relevance is unclear. [source] Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in subjects with Type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapyDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 6 2007T. R. Pieber Abstract Aims To compare glycaemic control and risk of hypoglycaemia of twice-daily insulin detemir with once-daily insulin glargine in subjects with Type 1 diabetes. Methods In this 26-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial, 320 subjects with Type 1 diabetes received either insulin detemir twice daily or insulin glargine once daily. each in combination with premeal insulin aspart. Results After 26 weeks, HbA1c had decreased from 8.8 to 8.2% in the insulin detemir group and from 8.7 to 8.2% in the insulin glargine group. Home-measured fasting plasma glucose (PG) was lower with insulin glargine than with insulin detemir (7.0 vs. 7.7 mmol/l, P < 0.001). The overall shape of the home-measured nine-point PG profiles was comparable between treatments (P = 0.125). Overall, there was no significant difference in within-subject variation in PG (P = 0.437). Within-subject variation in predinner PG was lower with insulin detemir than with insulin glargine (P < 0.05). The overall risk of hypoglycaemia was similar with no differences in confirmed hypoglycaemia. However, the risk of severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia was 72% and 32%, respectively, lower with insulin detemir than with insulin glargine (P < 0.05). Body weight gain was not significantly different comparing insulin detemir and insulin glargine (0.52 kg vs. 0.96 kg, P = 0.193). Conclusions Treatment with twice-daily insulin detemir or once-daily insulin glargine, each in combination with insulin aspart, resulted in similar glycaemic control. The overall risk of hypoglycaemia was comparable, whereas the risks of both severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia were significantly lower with insulin detemir. [source] A 75% insulin lispro/25% NPL mixture provides a longer duration of insulin activity compared with insulin lispro alone in patients with Type 1 diabetesDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 11 2003P. Roach Abstract Aims To compare a new insulin formulation, high mix (HM) [75% lispro (LP) and 25% neutral protamine lispro (NPL)], to regular human insulin (HR) and LP with respect to glucose response and pharmacokinetics following a test meal in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Methods After fasting overnight, patients received an intravenous insulin infusion to standardize blood glucose (BG) to 7.5 mmol/l (135 mg/dl). In a randomised, three-way crossover study, HR was injected 30 min before, and LP or HM was injected immediately before the test meal on three separate occasions. For each patient, LP and HR were administered at identical doses; the HM dose was one and one third times that of HR and LP to maintain the same dose of short or rapid-acting insulin. The insulin infusion was stopped 15 min after the insulin injection. Free insulin and BG concentrations were measured frequently for 7 h following the test meal. Results HM and LP resulted in better glycaemic control than HR during the observation period. BG concentrations during the first 4,5 h did not differ between HM and LP. However, HM exhibited prolonged insulin activity relative to LP beyond 5 h, extending the duration of action by approximately 1 h, and resulting in lower overall BG concentrations when the 0,6- and 0,7-h intervals were considered. Conclusions Compared with LP, HM provided similar glycaemic control for up to 5 h and superior glycaemic control from 5 to 7 h following a standard test meal [source] The effect of metformin on blood pressure, plasma cholesterol and triglycerides in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic reviewJOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, Issue 1 2004M. G. Wulffelé Abstract. Background., The UKPDS 34 showed that intensive treatment with metformin significantly reduces macrovascular end-points and mortality in individuals with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes compared with intensive treatment with insulin or sulphonylurea derivatives, despite similar glycaemic control. How this should be explained is as yet unclear. We hypothesized that metformin may have a glucose-lowering independent effect on blood pressure and lipid profile. In order to test this hypothesis we systematically reviewed the literature and pooled the data obtained in a meta-analysis. Methods., Included were randomized-controlled trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metformin treatment lasting at least 6 weeks. To identify all eligible trials we conducted electronic searches using the bibliographic databases Medline and Embase, contacted the manufacturer and checked obtained publications for cross-references. Results., Forty-one studies (3074 patients) provided data on blood pressure and/or lipid profile. When compared with control treatment, metformin associated effects on systolic and diastolic blood pressure and HDL cholesterol were small and statistically not significant [,1.09 mmHg 95% confidence interval (,3.01,0.82), P = 0.30; ,0.97 (,2.15,0.21) mmHg, P = 0.11 and +0.01 (,0.02,0.03) mmol L,1, P = 0.50, respectively]. Compared with control treatment, however, metformin decreased plasma triglycerides, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol significantly [,0.13 (,0.21,,0.04) mmol L,1, P = 0.003; ,0.26 (,0.34,,0.18) mmol L,1, P < 0.0001 and ,0.22 (,0.31,,0.13) mmol L,1, P < 0.00001, respectively]. We found no indications for publication bias. Of note, glycaemic control as assessed by HbA1c was better with metformin than with control treatment [,0.74 (,0.84,,0.65) percentage point; P < 0.00001]. When studies were subdivided into tertiles according to increasing difference in glycaemic control between metformin and control treatment, it appeared that in case of near similar glycaemic control metformin had no effect versus control treatment on triglycerides, whereas still there was a significant effect on total and LDL cholesterol. Conclusions., This meta-analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials suggests that metformin has no intrinsic effect on blood pressure, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in patients with type 2 diabetes. This drug, however, independent of its effect on glycaemia, reduces total and LDL cholesterol significantly, but the reductions in these variables are relatively small. [source] | ||||||||||