Objective Through studying a diabetic patient accompanied with pancreatic cancer by means of evidence-based clinical practice, to find out the relationship between diabetes mellitus and cancer and whether the long-acting insulin glargine increases the risk of cancer or not, which is regarded as a disputable hot issue at present. Methods Such databases as The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2010), OVID-EBM Reviews (1991 to Sept. 2010), MEDLINE (1950 to Sept. 2010) and CNKI (2000 to Sept. 2010) were retrieved to collect high quality clinical evidence, and the best therapy was formulated in accordance with the willingness of patients themselves. Results Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), four meta-analyses and one RCT meta-analysis were included. The evidence indicated that: a) Diabetes mellitus was kind of related to the occurrence of malignancies; b) There was no evidence at present showing the relationship between long-acting insulin glargine and cancer; c) Strictly controlling of blood sugar did not increase the risk of tumorigenesis, but hyperglycemia causing cancer was proofless; and d) Whether the diabetic patient with cancer should stop taking long-acting insulin glargine or not should require suggestions from specialists rather than patients themselves. Conclusion No evidence at present shows that tumorigenesis is related to diabetes mellitus, long-acting insulin glargine and strict controlling of blood sugar. It is necessary to require more evidence to decide whether the therapy should be adjusted or not for the diabetic patient with cancer who is in the process of glargine therapy.
Objective To compare the blood glucose level and associated hypoglycemia risks by using insulin Glargine or human NPH both combined with Glipizide GITS in the treatment of type 2 diabetic patients. Methods Fifty-six cases with inadequate glycemia control by sulfonylurea and/or other oral agents were randomized in two groups (3∶1). In the Glarine group, 42 patients were given Clipizide GITS 5 mg every morning and injection of Glargine at bedtime daily, while 14 patients in the NPH group were given Clipizide GITS 5 mg every morning and injection of NPH at bedtime daily. The dosage of insulin was adjusted by FBG level, seeking a target of FBG＜6.7 mmol/L, and the treatment lasted for 12 weeks. The blood glucose level and incidence of hypoglycemia were observed. The daily dosages of Glargine and NPH were recorded to analyze their relations between FBG and BMI at the beginning of the trial. Results Mean of FBG and daily glucose profile were similar in the 2 groups, but the incidence of hypoglycemia in the Glargine group was significantly lower than that in the NPH group (3 cases in the Glargine group, 7.1%, 5 cases in the NPH group, 35.7%, χ2=7.0, P =0.008). Mean daily dosages of glargine at the end point were closely related to FBG and BMI at baseline. Conclusions Bedtime injection of Glargine combined with Glipizide GITs can achieve target blood glucose control and is safer than NPH. This simple “one pill-one injection” regimen may help us achieve recommended blood glucose control targets with better patients’ compliance.
【摘要】 目的 老年综合评估法筛查75岁以上2型糖尿病（type 2 diabetes mellitus，T2DM）合并老年综合征的情况，并观察以甘精胰岛素为基础的治疗方法对老年综合征、血糖、低血糖事件、治疗满意度等的影响。 方法 应用老年综合评估中的日常生活能力、工具性日程生活能力、简易智能量表、老年抑郁量表、微型营养评定法，分别评估2005年12月—2009年12月老年门诊及病房住院的日常生活能力、认知功能状态、情绪障碍和营养状态，对其合并功能障碍、痴呆、抑郁、营养障碍、伤害性跌倒等老年综合征的患病情况进行横断面调查；筛选至少合并一种老年综合征和一个其他合并疾病，血糖控制差、预期寿命有限的患者进行以甘精胰岛素为基础的降糖治疗，采用自身前后对照的方法了解对糖化血红蛋白（hemoglobin A1c， HbA1c）、低血糖事件、治疗满意度的影响，并观察甘精胰岛素治疗方案对上述老年综合征的影响。 结果 132例老年门诊及病房住院的75岁以上T2DM患者功能障碍者高达50.0%（66例），罹患包括轻度认知功能障碍在内的痴呆比例为39.4%（52例）；合并抑郁症28.0%（37例）；营养失衡30.0%（39例）。33例患者符合甘精胰岛素治疗纳入标准，经过2年的随访发现，以甘精胰岛素为基础的治疗方案在适当降低HbA1c水平时，不增加老年综合征的患病率，但可以减少胰岛素多次皮下注射的次数，降低低血糖事件发生次数（由1.58次/例降为0.81次/例），提高患者治疗满意度。 结论 75岁以上T2DM患者合并老年综合征的比例高，老年综合评估能及时发现老年综合征；以甘精胰岛素为基础的治疗方案不增加老年综合征的发生，并能显著降低低血糖事件数、改善营养状态、提高患者对治疗的满意度。【Abstract】 Objective To screen geriatric syndrome in patients older than 75 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by the method of comprehensive geriatric assessment, and observe the impact of glargin-based therapy on geriatric syndrome, blood glucose level, the event of hypoglycemia and treatment satisfaction degree in patients older than 75 years with T2DM who suffered at least one kind of Geriatric syndromes. Methods From December 2005 to December 2009, activity of daily living (ADL), instrument activity of daily living (IADL), mini-mental state examination, geriatric depression scale and mini-nutritional assessment in comprehensive geriatric assessment were used to assess daily living ability, cognitive function status, emotional disorder and nutritional status of out/in-patients older than 75 years with T2DM in the Department of Geriatrics. Cross-sectional study was carried out to investigate geriatric syndromes such as combined functional disorder, dementia, depression, nutritional disorder and impairment falls in those patients, and patients with T2DM combined with at least one kind of geriatric syndrome and another kind of combined disease were screened out. A glargin-based anti-hyperglycemic therapy was carried out for those patients with poor blood glucose control limited remaining life time. The effects of this therapy on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), the event of hypoglycemia and treatment satisfaction degree of the patients were studied through a self-comparison method. Then, its effect on the above-mentioned geriatric syndromes was observed. Results Among all the 132 out/in patients older than 75 years with T2DM, the prevalence rates of functional disorder (including ADL and IADL), dementia including mild cognitive disorder, depression, and malnutrition were respectively 50.0% (66), 39.4% (52), 28.0% (37), and 30.0% (39). Only 33 patients met the criteria of glargin-based treatment. After 2 years of follow-up, we found that the glargin-based treatment could properly decrease the level of HbA1c without increasing the prevalence rate of geriatric syndrome. Moreover, it could reduce the frequency of insulin injection and the events of hypoglycemia, and treatment satisfaction degree was also significantly improved. Conclusions Geriatric syndrome has a relatively high prevalence rate in patients older than 75 years with T2DM. Comprehensive geriatric assessment is beneficial in finding out the geriatric syndrome, and glargin-based hypoglycemic therapy can significantly reduce the events of hypoglycemia, improve nutritional status, and increase treatment satisfaction degree without increasing the rate of geriatric syndrome .
摘要:目的:了解甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗对口服降糖药血糖控制不理想的2型糖尿病患者的疗效和安全性。方法:对30例口服降糖药血糖控制不理想的2型糖尿病患者给与甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗,共12周。治疗前后测身高、体重、空腹血糖(FPG)、餐后2小时血糖(PPG)以及糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平。了解治疗期间低血糖发生情况。结果:治疗后的FPG、PPG以及HbA1c水平明显下降,分别下降了303mmol/L、510mmol/L和198%,差异有统计学意义(Plt;005)。治疗后5330%的患者HbA1c水平lt;70%。治疗前HbA1c水平≥70%lt;90%的患者,治疗后706%的患者HbA1c水平lt;70%,治疗前HbA1c水平≥90%的患者,治疗后307%的患者HbA1c水平lt;70%,两者的HbA1c达标率有明显差异(Plt;005)。治疗前后体重及BMI无明显差异(Pgt;005)。30例患者中仅发生两次轻微低血糖。结论:甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗对口服降糖药治疗血糖控制不理想的2型糖尿病患者是安全有效的,尤其是对HbA1c水平lt;90%的患者,血糖控制更好,达标率更高。
目的:观察甘精胰岛素、阿卡波糖与盐酸贝那普利联合治疗2型糖尿病早期肾病的临床疗效。方法:将62例2型糖尿病合并糖尿病肾病III期患者用甘精胰岛素作为基础量使空腹血糖达标,三餐时联合阿卡波糖口服控制餐后血糖,辅以盐酸贝那普利治疗,观察治疗前后血糖、血压及尿白蛋白/肌酐的变化。结果:经甘精胰岛素、阿卡波糖治疗后空腹和餐后2 h血糖明显下降,联合盐酸贝那普利治疗可改善胰岛素抵抗,并使UAER明显下降。结论:甘精胰岛素作为基础量、联合阿卡波糖控制血糖,辅以盐酸贝那普利口服是治疗2型糖尿病合并早期糖尿病肾病的方法之一,疗效肯定,无低血糖发生。
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of sitagliptin plus glargine insulin versus repaglinide plus glargine insulin in the treatment of Type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MethodsA total of 140 T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled by oral anti-diabetic agents from January 2011 to December 2012 were divided into sitagliptin plus glargine insulin group (observation group) or repaglinide plus glargine insulin group (control group). The duration of treatment was 12 weeks. Fasting blood glucose (FBG), 2h plasma glucose (2hPG), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body max index (BMI) and dose of insulin as well as hypoglycemia events were recorded and analyzed. ResultsAfter treatment, FBG, 2hPG, and HbA1c were significantly decreased in both groups (P<0.05). HbA1c targeting rate was 88.3% in the observation group and 87.8% in the control group. Compared with the control group, the observation group used 12.1% less dosage of insulin, and had decreased BMI and low incidence of hypoglycemia. ConclusionSitagliptin plus glargine insulin can effectively control blood glucose and body weight with low incidence of hypoglycemia and much less insulin dosage under the same HbA1c targeting rate. Sitagliptin plus glargine insulin is a good combination therapy for the treatment of T2DM.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of premixed insulin lispro versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). MethodsSuch databases as PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), PubMed, EMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data were searched up to October 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the clinical efficacy and safety of premixed insulin lispro versus insulin glargine for T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the exclusion and inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 13 RCTs involving 4 557 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:compared to insulin glargine, premixed insulin lispro was more effective in reducing levels of HbA1c (parallel trials:WMD=-0.18, 95%CI-0.33 to-0.02, P=0.03; cross-over trials:WMD=-0.38, 95%CI-0.52 to-0.24, P < 0.000 01). However, insulin glargine was more effective in reducing levels of FPG (parallel trials:WMD=0.82, 95%CI 0.65 to 0.99, P < 0.000 01; cross-over trials:WMD=0.64, 95%CI 0.26 to 1.02, P=0.000 9), weight gain (parallel trials:WMD=0.93, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.56, P=0.003; cross-over trials:WMD=0.74, 95%CI 0.19 to 1.29, P=0.009), and decreased the incidence of hypoglycemia (parallel trials:OR=1.26, 95%CI 1.10 to 1.45, P=0.000 6; cross-over trials:OR=2.24, 95%CI 1.45 to 3.46, P=0.000 3). ConclusionFor T2DM patients, premixed insulin lispro and insulin glargine have different advantages in clinical efficacy and safety. Doctors should select appropriate insulin treatment according to patients' health conditions.