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.
ObjectiveTo investigate the status of newly diagnosed adult epilepsy in the General Hospital of Jilin Province, in order to improve the prevention and treatment of epilepsy. MethodsTo collect the clinical data of newly diagnosed adult epilepsy from October 2016 to February 2017, and to follow up 6 months. ResultsA total of 81 patients were included. At the last clinic visit, 73 cases origined from focal, 74 cases were positive in EEG examination, 56 cases were unknown etiology, 12 cases had hippocampal sclerosis, 48 cases were mildly declined cognitive function, and 30 cases were poor compliance. ConclusionThe newly diagnosed epilepsy were focal origin, delayed treatment, mildly declined cognitive function and poor compliance.
Objective The study was performed to compare the efficacy and effect on quality of life of sodium valproate (VPA) sustained-release tablets versus topiramate (TPM) in newly diagnosed adult symptomatic epilepsy. Methods This is aprospective, randomized controlled trial on 200 patients newly diagnosed as adult symptomatic epilepsy in Sichuan Province People’s Hospital druing September 2014 to December 2016. The patients were randomly divided into VPA group (n=110) and TPM group (n=90). Then we evaluated the efficacy, retention rate, adverse reactions, and quality of life of the two groups after one year of treatment. Results The total effective rate of VPA group was 69.1%, and the rate of no seizures was 38.2%; the total effective rate of TPM was 62.2%, and the rate of no seizures was 42.2%. No statistically significant difference in the effective rate and no seizure rate was found between the two groups. There was no statistical difference in the retention rate between the two groups(69.1% vs. 65.6%, P>0.05) . The incidence of adverse reactions of VPA was significantly lower than that of TPM (9.1%vs. 20%, P<0.05). The quality of life of the two groups was significantly improved from baseline before treatment. VPA group showed significantly better performance than TPM group on mood and cognitive improvement (P<0.05). Conclusion ① There was no significant difference in efficacy and retention rate between VPA sustained-release tablet and TPM on adult patients with symptomatic epilepsy after one year's treatment; ② The incidence of adverse reactions of TPM group was significantly higher than that of VPA group; ③ VPA sustained-release tablets and TPM can significantly improve the overall quality of life of patients, and VPA sustained-release tablets is significantly better than topiramate on the improvement of emotional and cognitive function.