Objective?To compare the effect of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with that of multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) in the patients with newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes, and to provide evidence for clinical treatment. Methods?We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science and Technology Full-text Database up to Dec. 2009 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had been conducted with patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. The selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0.23 software. The following outcomes were assessed: glycaemic control, insulin requirements, HOMA-IR, HOMA-β, hypoglycaemia and diabetic remission after follow-up. Results?Eight RCTs involving 597 newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients were included. The methodological quality of the most studies was lower. The funnel plot comparing insulin requirement of CSII therapy with that of MDI therapy showed asymmetry, indicating that there was publication bias. The results of meta-analyses showed that: CSII had the same effect on improving fasting blood glucose (WMD= –0.21, 95%CI –0.42 to 0.00, P=0.05) and postprandial blood glucose (WMD= –0.24, 95CI% –0.57 to 0.08, P=0.14) as MDI in newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes. CSII therapy took 2.74 days fewer than MDI therapy (WMD= –2.74, 95CI% –3.33 to –2.16, Plt;0.000 01) and needed lower insulin requirements (reducing 7.78 units per day) (WMD= –7.78, 95CI% –9.25 to –6.31, Plt;0.000 01) to get target glucose control. The rate of hypoglycaemia of CSII therapy decreased 69% (OR= 0.31, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.80, P=0.01) compared with that of MDI. The rate of diabetes remission after short-term intensive insulin therapy increased 46% (OR=1.46, 95%CI 1.01 to 2.10, P=0.04) in CSII therapy compared with that in MDI therapy. Conclusion?In newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes, CSII therapy is better than MDI therapy. But because of the low quality of the included studies, the conclusion should be combined with patients and physicians’ experience, advantages and disadvantages in the clinical application.
Objective To review systematically whether there is enough existing evidence that methylcobalamin is effective and safe in the treatment of the patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.Methods A Cochrane systematic review of all relevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of methycobalamin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy was performed. Clinical trials were searched from Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2004), the Chinese Biological Medicine Database (1978 to January 2004), the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full-text Database (1989 to January 2004) and references of all included trials. The selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. The following outcomes were assessed: effectiveness of clinical signs and symptoms, sensory nerve and motor nerve conduction velocities and serious adverse events of methylcobalamin. Results Thirty randomized clinical trials including 1 949 patients met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the most included trials was of low level. The "funnel plot" of the comparison of thirteen studies of methylcobalamin with other B Vitamins studies showed symmetry, which indicated less possible publication bias and the result was partly reliable, but it could not indicate the whole publication biases. The results of meta-analysis indicated that methylcobalamin showed significantly positive effects on the improvement of the signs and symptoms of peripheral neuropathy, and the effects were better than the other vitamin B agents. The increase of some nerves conduction velocities by methylcobalamin was better than by the other vitamin B. No serious adverse events were observed during the treatment period.Conclusions Methylcobalamin appears to be a safe and effective treatment on diabetic peripheral neuropathy. However, the evidence is not b because of the low quality of most trials. Rigorously designed, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of methylcobalamin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy are needed to further assess the effect.
Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Puerarin on diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Methods A systematic review and evaluation of all available relevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of Puerarin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy from Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (150 issue of 2003), Medline (1966-2003. 2), EMbase (1984-2001. 12. 4), and the Chinese Biological Medicine Database (1978-2003. 2) were performed. The selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. The following outcomes were assessed: effectiveness of clinical symptoms, sensory nerve and motor nerve conduction velocities, and severe adverse events of Puerarin. Results Ten randomized controlled clinical trials including 726 patients met the inclusion criteria. At the end of the treatment, compared to general treatment or vitamin B, Puerarin showed significant positive effects on the total effect rate of therapy and increased peripheral nerve conduction velocity. No severe adverse events were observed during the treatment period. However, most included trials show some degree of study design or analysis defect. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that Puerarin appears to be an effective and safe treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. However, due to the low quality trials included in this review, more rigorously designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of Puerarin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy are needed to further assess its usefulness in diabetes peripheral neuropathy patients.
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of venlafaxine and carbamazepine on painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Methods This was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. 132 patients a venlafaxine group (n=66) and a carbamazepine group (n=66) with painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy were recruited from 3 clinical centers. The venlafaxine group took venlafaxine 25 mg plus one dummy carbamazepine tablet twice a day and the carbamazepine group took carbamazepine 0.1 g plus one dummy venlafaxine tablet twice a day both for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy measurement consisted of a numeric pain intensity scale and the secondary measurement assessed quality of life. Results One hundred and nineteen patients completed the trial. Venlafaxine was superior to carbamazepine in improving mean pain intensity scores at 5,7,10 and 14 days by per-protocol analysis (P=0.02, P=0.03, P=0.003 and P=0.001 respectively). The effects of venlafaxine on the improvement in the total quality of life scores were better than those of carbamazepine at 10 and 14 days (P=0.02 and P=0.01 respectively). Sleep interference and mood were improved by both venlafaxine and carbamazepine, but the efficacy of venlafaxine was superior to that of carbamazepine. The common adverse events of venlafaxine included mild gastrointestinal discomfort, dizziness and somnolence. The frequency of adverse events in the venlafaxine group was about 43.9% (4 patients withdrew because of adverse events) and in the carbamazepine group about 25.76% (2 patients withdrew because of adverse events) (P =0.06). Conclusions Venlafaxine and carbamazepine are effective in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy, venlafaxine is superior to carbamazepine in improving pain and quality of life. Both drugs may be safe and well tolerated.