2型糖尿病合并肺结核治疗中诺和锐30和诺和灵30R的疗效观察

目的比较诺和锐30和诺和灵30R每日2次皮下注射治疗开始胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病(T₂DM)合并肺结核患者的疗效和安全性。方法随机、开放的比较观察12周。60例T₂DM合并肺结核患者被随机分为诺和锐30治疗组和诺和灵30R治疗组,采用每日早、晚餐前2次皮下注射方案,观察2组患者7个时点血糖、糖化血红蛋白(HbA_1C)、低血糖反应及其他不良反应观察2组治疗后痰菌转阴情况及肺结核病灶X线变化。结果诺和锐30治疗组3餐后血糖水平明显低于诺和灵30R治疗组(P<0.05);诺和锐30组低血糖发生次数低于诺和灵30R组,严重低血糖发生次数为诺和灵30R组的55.5%;2组HbA_1c、胰岛素用量及其他不良反应无显著性差异。诺和锐30组治疗后痰菌转阴率为90.4%,诺和灵30组痰菌转阴率为75%,2组有显著性差异(P<0.05),2组患者治疗后肺部病灶改善例数分别为19、18例,2组比较有显著性差异。结论T₂DM合并肺结核患者采用早、晚餐前预混胰岛素皮下注射方案治疗时,诺和锐30对餐后血糖控制更为满意,且低血糖反应发生率少,对痰菌转阴更为有效。可应用于开始胰岛素治疗的广大T₂DM合并肺结核患者。     

2型糖尿病合并肺结核治疗中诺和锐30和诺和灵30R的疗效观察

目的比较诺和锐30和诺和灵30R每日2次皮下注射治疗开始胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病(T2DM)合并肺结核患者的疗效和安全性。方法随机、开放的比较观察12周。60例T2DM合并肺结核患者被随机分为诺和锐30治疗组和诺和灵30R治疗组,采用每日早、晚餐前2次皮下注射方案,观察2组患者7个时点血糖、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1C)、低血糖反应及其他不良反应观察2组治疗后痰菌转阴情况及肺结核病灶X线变化。结果诺和锐30治疗组3餐后血糖水平明显低于诺和灵30R治疗组(P&lt;0.05);诺和锐30组低血糖发生次数低于诺和灵30R组,严重低血糖发生次数为诺和灵30R组的55.5%;2组HbA1c、胰岛素用量及其他不良反应无显著性差异。诺和锐30组治疗后痰菌转阴率为90.4%,诺和灵30组痰菌转阴率为75%,2组有显著性差异(P&lt;0.05),2组患者治疗后肺部病灶改善例数分别为19、18例,2组比较有显著性差异。结论T2DM合并肺结核患者采用早、晚餐前预混胰岛素皮下注射方案治疗时,诺和锐30对餐后血糖控制更为满意,且低血糖反应发生率少,对痰菌转阴更为有效。可应用于开始胰岛素治疗的广大T2DM合并肺结核患者。     

诺和锐30与诺和灵30R治疗老年2型糖尿病的有效性和安全性

胰岛素强化治疗是目前控制血糖,保护糖尿病(DM)患者自身胰岛细胞分泌功能有效方法之一.对新诊断的2型DM(T2DM)患者进行短期的胰岛素强化治疗,在较短的时间内血糖得到满意控制,解除高血糖的毒性作用,可使受到抑制的胰岛功能得到恢复[1,2].当前国内外多采用胰岛素持续皮下输注的方案或多次皮下注射的方法进行强化治疗.     

万苏林30R及诺和灵30R在治疗2型糖尿病中的疗效对比研究

目的比较万苏林30R和诺和灵30R治疗在开始胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病（T2DM）患者的疗效和安全性。方法将60例T2DM患者随机分为治疗组万苏林30R和诺和灵30R治疗组,采用每日早、晚餐前皮下注射方案,为期12周。观察两组患者不同时点血糖、糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）、低血糖事件及其他不良事件的差异。结果两组三餐后血糖水平、低血糖发生次数HbA1c、胰岛素用量及其他不良事件差异无统计学意义。结论T2DM患者采用万苏林30R治疗时,对餐后血糖控制满意,且低血糖事件发生率少。     

诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病血糖不满意者改用诺和锐30疗效分析

目前有近20%～30%的2型糖尿病患者需要用胰岛素控制其持续存在的高血糖[1]。预混胰岛素早晚餐前各一次皮下注射是目前多数2型糖尿病患者广泛使用的方法。临床常用的预混胰岛素有诺和灵30R和诺和锐30。由于诺和灵30R不能很好模拟人体生理胰岛素分泌方式,导致部分患者血糖控制不满意。本研究对使用诺和灵30R血糖控制不满意的2型糖尿病患者改用诺和锐30治疗,并对其临床疗效进行比较、分析。     

胰岛素类似物诺和锐30在2型糖尿病治疗中的应用

目的 探讨预混胰岛素类似物诺和锐30在临床的应用效果及低血糖的发生率.方法 以2型糖尿病患者为研究对象,对应用预混胰岛素类似物诺和锐30与预混双效人胰岛素诺和灵30R的治疗情况进行回顾性分析,观察各组治疗前后血糖降低水平、糖化血红蛋白、低血糖及低血糖事件发生次数.结果 应用诺和锐30治疗后,空腹血糖、餐后2 h血糖及HbA1c明显下降,与治疗前比较有统计学意义(P<0.05),低血糖发生率低于诺和灵30R组(P<0.05).结论 诺和锐30比诺和灵30R更有效的降低血糖;低血糖发生率低,安全性高;诺和锐30起效快,可餐前注射,亦可餐时及餐后注射.     

2型糖尿病老年患者口服药物控制不佳改诺和锐30治疗的疗效

糖尿病是以慢性血糖水平增高为临床特征的代谢性疾病,长期的糖、脂、蛋白代谢紊乱可引起多系统损害,导致视网膜、肾脏、心脏、血管、神经系统的慢性进行性功能减退和衰竭[1].老年患者由于身体各项机能减退,更需格外重视用药的有效性和安全性.当2型糖尿病患者已采取饮食、运动干预,同时联合口服降糖药而血糖仍然控制不佳时应及早启用基础胰岛素治疗[2].本文探讨老年糖尿病患者口服降糖药血糖控制不佳时的起始胰岛素治疗方案.     

诺和锐30特充与诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病分析

T2DM随机分两组，分别使用诺和锐30特充（204例）和诺和灵30R（268例），治疗3个月，观察血糖。糖化血红蛋白A1c（HbA1c），血脂、血压、尿蛋白的变化及药物不良反应。结果：两组均有明显疗效，但诺和锐30不良反应较少。结论：早期接受入胰岛素治疗能良好地控制血糖，诺和锐30特充更适合于初治病人。     

诺和锐30特充与诺和灵30R治疗2型糖尿病分析

T2DM随机分两组，分别使用诺和锐30特充（204例）和诺和灵30R（268例），治疗3个月，观察血糖。糖化血红蛋白A1c（HbA1c），血脂、血压、尿蛋白的变化及药物不良反应。结果：两组均有明显疗效，但诺和锐30不良反应较少。结论：早期接受入胰岛素治疗能良好地控制血糖，诺和锐30特充更适合于初治病人。     

每日3次诺和锐30治疗2型糖尿病疗效观察

目的 比较不同胰岛素强化治疗对T2DM的疗效.方法 240例T2DM患者随机分为两组:诺和锐30组(124例)日3次诺和锐30皮下注射;诺和灵组(116例)日4次重组人胰岛素治疗(三餐前半小时注射诺和灵R,睡前注射诺和灵N).结果 两组相比,诺和锐30组控制血糖更快,胰岛素用量更少,低血糖发生率更低.结论 日3次注射诺和锐30,能更有效控制血糖,但需警惕低血糖发生.     

诺和锐30强化治疗对初诊2型糖尿病患者第一时相胰岛素分泌的影响

目的探讨短期诺和锐30强化治疗对初诊2型糖尿病（T2DM）患者第一时相胰岛素分泌缺陷的作用。方法对30例初诊T2DM患者进行每日3次诺和锐30强化治疗2周,治疗前后分别行静脉葡萄糖耐量实验,测定0、3、4、5、8、10、120分钟血糖、胰岛素及C肽值,计算胰岛素和C肽曲线下面积（AUC）及稳态模型胰岛素抵抗指数（HOMA—IR）。结果患者治疗后血清胰岛素及C肽第一时相分泌明显增加,AUC0-10min均明显升高（P〈0．01）。HOMA-IR指数明显降低（P〈0．01）。结论短期每日3次诺和锐30强化治疗能明显改善初诊T2DM患者C肽的第一时相分泌及胰岛素敏感性。     

Glycemic control and safety in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus oral antidiabetics: a large,prospective, observational study

In some circumstances, the premixed insulin should be switched to alternative therapy. The effectiveness and the safety of switching from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have not been clarified and, hence, will be assessed in this study. Chinese patients with T2DM (2013 men and women aged 18–75 years) who had received premixed insulin ± OADs for ≥3 months with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤ 10% were enrolled in a prospective, observational study conducted at 53 hospitals across China. At baseline and at the discretion of the physician, patients switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OADs. Changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2‐hour postprandial glucose (PPG), treatment satisfaction, and the incidence of hypoglycemia were assessed for 16 weeks. In total, 1850 patients completed the study. Mean HbA1c level for the group decreased significantly (from 7.8% ± 1.2% at week 1 to 7.0% ± 1.0% at week 16; P  < .0001), and 55.2% of patients achieved HbA1c < 7% at week 16. Mean FPG and 2‐hour PPG decreased significantly (−1.4 ± 2.2 and −2.1 ± 3.9 mmol/L, respectively; both P  < .0001), whereas patient satisfaction improved significantly. Adverse events were reported in 18.7% of patients. Chinese patients with T2DM who switched from premixed insulin to insulin glargine plus OADs achieved significantly improved glycemic control and treatment satisfaction with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. Patients who are most likely to achieve the HbA1c target less than 7% are younger, have shorter disease duration, and have lower baseline HbA1c and FPG levels.     

Combination of oral antidiabetic agents with basal insulin versus premixed insulin alone in randomized elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES: To compare initiation of insulin therapy by adding once-daily insulin glargine to oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) with switching patients to premixed 30% regular, 70% human neutral protamine hagedorn insulin (70/30) without OADs. DESIGN: A 24-week, multicenter, open, randomized (1:1), parallel study. SETTING: Three hundred sixty-four poorly controlled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were treated with once-daily morning insulin glargine with continued OADs (glimepiride+metformin) (glargine+OAD) or twice-daily 70/30 alone. Insulin dosage in each group was titrated to target fasting blood glucose (FBG) of 100 mg/dL or less (or=6.7 mmol/L) and hemoglobin (Hb)A(1c) levels between 7.5% and 10.5% on OADs (glargine+OAD, n=67; 70/30, n=63). MEASUREMENTS: HbA(1c), FBG, hypoglycemia, insulin dose, and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: HbA(1c) decreased from baseline to endpoint for both glargine+OAD (from 8.8% to 7.0%) and 70/30 (from 8.9% to 7.4%); adjusted mean HbA(1c) decrease for glargine+OAD and 70/30 was -1.9% and -1.4%, respectively (P=.003). More patients reached HbA(1c) of 7.0% or less without confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia with glargine+OAD (n=37, 55.2%) than with 70/30 (n=19, 30.2%) (P=.006). FBG decreased significantly more with glargine+OAD (-57 mg/dL (-3.2 mmol/L)) than with 70/30 (-40 mg/dL (-2.2 mmol/L)) (P=.002). Patients treated with glargine+OAD experienced fewer episodes of any hypoglycemia (3.68/patient-year) than did those treated with 70/30 (9.09/patient-year) (P=.008). CONCLUSION: In elderly patients, addition of once-daily morning glargine+OAD is a simple regimen to initiate insulin therapy, restoring glycemic control more effectively and with less hypoglycemia than twice-daily 70/30 alone.     

2型糖尿病患者血清乳酸脱氢酶与胰岛素抵抗的相关性

目的探讨2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者血清乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)与胰岛素抵抗的相关性。方法选取2016年10月至2017年12月安徽省马鞍山市人民医院内分泌科住院的T2DM患者138例。患者入院后行口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT),即清晨空腹状态下口服75 g葡萄糖,分别抽取口服葡萄糖前,口服葡萄糖后30、60、120 min静脉血,检测血糖及胰岛素水平。根据稳态模型胰岛素抵抗(HOMA-IR)指数标准将患者分为HOMA-IR<2.5组(50例)和HOMA-IR≥2.5组(88例)。收集并比较2组患者一般资料、相关生化指标、LDH及Matsuda胰岛素敏感指数(Matsuda ISI)等数据。根据LDH三分位数水平将患者分为<172 IU/L、172~197 IU/L和>197 IU/L 3个亚组,比较3个亚组胰岛β细胞功能相关指标HOMA-IR和Matsuda ISI及其他相关指标。采用SPSS 24.0统计软件进行分析。根据数据类型,组间比较采用独立样本t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验、χ2检验、单因素方差分析或Kruskal-Wallis H检验。指标相关性采用Spearman非参数相关分析。多因素logistic回归用于评估发生胰岛素抵抗的危险因素。结果与HOMA-IR<2.5组比较,HOMA-IR≥2.5组患者LDH、空腹血糖、各时间点胰岛素等显著升高,Matsuda ISI显著降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。<172 IU/L、172~197 IU/L和>197 IU/L 3个亚组中HOMA-IR≥2.5人数分别占50.00%(23/46)、52.17%(24/46)和89.13%(41/46)。随着LDH水平升高,HOMA-IR显著升高,Matsuda ISI显著降低,同时3亚组OGTT各时间点胰岛素不同,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。相关分析显示,LDH与HOMA-IR呈正相关(r=0.289,P<0.05),与Matsuda ISI呈负相关(r=-0.314,P<0.001)。校正年龄等相关因素后,多因素logistic回归分析显示,LDH为发生胰岛素抵抗的独立预测因素之一(OR=2.99,95%CI 1.83~4.67;P<0.001)。结论LDH与胰岛β细胞功能指标HOMA-IR及Matsuda ISI存在显著相关性,可以作为简单易行的指标来初步评估T2DM患者胰岛素抵抗的严重程度,协助调整治疗方案。     

Biphasic insulin aspart 30 plus metformin: an effective combination in type 2 diabetes

AIM: This study compared glycaemic control achieved with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) monotherapy, BIAsp 30 plus metformin and glibenclamide plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled with metformin. METHODS: In this multinational, open-labelled, parallel group, 16-week trial, 341 patients (patients not adequately controlled with metformin for at least 1 month) with type 2 diabetes were studied. Patients were randomized to receive BIAsp 30, twice daily (n = 107 exposed to treatment), or BIAsp 30, twice daily, plus metformin (n = 108) or glibenclamide plus metformin (n = 114). The primary endpoint was HbA(1c) at end of trial; adverse events, hypoglycaemia episodes, blood lipids and weight were also monitored. RESULTS: In the total population (HbA(1c) 7.5-13.0% at screening), end-of-trial HbA(1c) levels were lower in patients receiving BIAsp 30 plus metformin compared with those receiving BIAsp 30 only [mean treatment difference (+/-s.e.m), 0.39 +/- 0.15%, p = 0.007]. In a subpopulation (HbA(1c) > or = 9.0% at baseline, n = 193), patients receiving BIAsp 30 plus metformin had significantly lower HbA(1c) levels at the end of the trial compared with those receiving glibenclamide plus metformin (treatment difference, 0.46 +/- 0.21%, p = 0.027). Mean body weight (+/-s.d) at the end of the trial was significantly lower in patients receiving glibenclamide plus metformin compared with those receiving BIAsp 30 only (84.3 +/- 13.3 kg vs. 88.9 +/- 16.9 kg, p < 0.001). No major hypoglycaemic episodes were recorded during the trial, and incidence rates for minor and symptoms-only hypoglycaemia were low and similar between treatment groups (0.03-0.04 events/patient/week). CONCLUSION: BIAsp 30 added to metformin could be an appropriate therapeutic option for achieving good glycaemic control, compared with the addition of a second oral agent, particularly where HbA(1c) > or = 9%.     

甘精胰岛素与双相门冬胰岛素用于初诊2型糖尿病患者胰岛素泵治疗后的疗效比较

目的比较甘精胰岛素（来得时）和双相门冬胰岛素（诺和锐30）皮下注射应用于初诊T2DM短期持续皮下胰岛素输注（CSII）治疗后的疗效。方法60例初诊T2DM患者应用CSII治疗后,随机分为以诺和锐30治疗的BIAsp30组和以来得时治疗的Lantus组。比较两组7个时点血糖、HbA1c、低血糖事件及其他不良事件的差异。结果与BIAsp30组相比,Lantus组20周后三餐后血糖水平明显降低,低血糖事件发生次数低（P均〈0．05）;两组FPG、HbA1c及不良事件差异无统计学意义（P均〉0．05）。结论初诊T2DM患者CSII治疗所用Ins剂量相同且血糖达标后,采用来得时睡前1次注射,比早、晚餐前诺和锐30皮下注射治疗者全天血糖控制满意,且低血糖事件发生率低。     

胰岛素泵与多次胰岛素皮下注射治疗2型糖尿病疗效对比分析

目的比较短期胰岛素泵(CSII)与多次皮下胰岛素(MSII)注射强化控制2型糖尿病(T2DM)的有效性和安全性。方法对解放军总院内分泌科2006年6月至2007年5月收治住院的96例糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)>7.5%的T2DM患者随机分为2组,分别给予CSII和MSII进行短期强化达标治疗,比较两组治疗前后的多时点血糖、糖化血清蛋白(GSP)、血糖达标天数、达标时胰岛素总剂量及低血糖事件发生的差异。结果治疗后CSII组与MSII组静脉血空腹血糖(FBG)分别由(13.53±5.01)mmol/L和(12.25±3.49)mmol/L下降到(5.56±0.76)mmol/L和(6.07±0.97)mmol/L,CSII组FBG下降程度更大(P=0.005)。静脉血餐后2h血糖(2hPG)分别由(19.56±5.82)mmol/L和(18.69±3.98)mmol/L下降到(6.93±1.07)mmol/L和(7.28±1.54)mmol/L,两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组的7个时点指血血糖均显著降低,两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。但达标时最高与最低血糖差值CSII组明显小于MSII组(P=0.029),血糖曲线下面积CSII组明显小于MSII组(P=0.017)。CSII组与MSII组GSP分别由(407±79)μmol/L和(410±100)μmol/L下降到(266±74)μmol/L和(297±83)μmol/L,均有显著改善(P均<0.01),两组治疗后绝对下降值CSII组更显著(P<0.05)。CSII组血糖达标时间平均为(3.66±1.41)d,显著短于MSII组的(5.83±1.77)d(P<0.05)。CSII组在达标时和治疗第7天的胰岛素剂量分别是(40.23±7.47)U/d和(36.06±9.71)U/d,均显著少于MSII组的(47.71±17.74)U/d和(45.63±11.91)U/d(P均<0.05)。两组有症状性低血糖事件共35例次,CSII组与MSII组分别有15例次和20例次,其中CSII组血糖≤3.9mmol/L和≤2.8mmol/L的分别为7和0例次,MSII组分别为19和8例次,前者均少于后者。结论两种胰岛素强化治疗均能有效控制尚未胰岛素治疗的T2DM患者的血糖,促进短期血糖达标。但与MSII相比,CSII治疗在降低FBG、缩小血糖波动和整体血糖控制方面更显著,并能够缩短血糖达标时间,减少胰岛素用量和降低低血糖的发生率。     

Lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin detemir than with neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in older persons with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of phase III trials

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir with that of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in older (aged ≥65) and younger (aged 18–64) persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).
DESIGN: Pooled, post hoc analysis of data from three open-label, randomized studies.
SETTING: Three multinational Phase III trials.
PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred sixteen older and 880 younger persons with DM, treated for 22 to 26 weeks with basal insulin plus mealtime insulin or oral agents.
MEASUREMENTS: Hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), fasting plasma glucose, glucose variability, hypoglycemic episodes.
RESULTS: Mean treatment difference for HbA_1c (insulin detemir–NPH insulin) indicated that insulin detemir was not inferior to NPH insulin for both age groups (0.035%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=−0.114–0.183 and 0.100%, 95% CI=−0.017–0.217, for older and younger persons, respectively). Relative risk of all hypoglycemic episodes (insulin detemir/NPH insulin) was 0.59 (95% CI-0.42–0.83) for older persons and 0.75 (95% CI-0.59–0.96) for younger persons. Adverse events were similar between treatments. Fasting plasma glucose was similar between treatments (mean treatment difference 0.97 mg/dL, 95% CI=−8.01–9.95, and 4.69 mg/dL, 95% CI=−2.30–11.67, for older and younger persons, respectively). Mean treatment difference for weight was −1.02 kg (95% CI −1.61 to −0.42) and −1.13 (95% CI −1.58 to −0.69) for older and younger persons, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Previously reported benefits of insulin detemir, particularly less hypoglycemia and less weight gain, compared with NPH insulin, were the same for older and younger persons with DM at similar levels of HbA_1c.     

Comparison of insulin analogue regimens in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the PREFER Study: a randomized controlled trial

Aims:  Insulin analogues are widely used but few data exist comparing different analogue regimens. We compared two such regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled by oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) with or without basal insulin.
Methods:  In a 26-week multinational, multicentre, randomized treat-to-target trial, OADs were discontinued and subjects randomized to analogue basal–bolus therapy (insulin detemir once daily and insulin aspart mealtimes) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (30% rapid-acting insulin aspart), twice daily. Insulin was titrated to targets for fasting, predinner and postprandial plasma glucose (PG), as appropriate.
Results:  Of 719 subjects, 92% completed the study; 58% achieved haemoglobin fraction A_1c (HbA_1c) ≤7.0%, with reductions of 1.56% (to 6.96%) with basal–bolus therapy and 1.23% (to 7.17%) with biphasic insulin aspart. Reduction with basal–bolus therapy was superior in the overall population by 0.23% (p = 0.0052), with no difference between regimens in insulin-naive patients. Major hypoglycaemia occurred in five basal–bolus patients (0.9%) and in no patients with biphasic insulin aspart. Incidence of minor hypoglycaemia was similar in both groups. All insulin doses increased during titration, with increase in lunchtime insulin aspart dose and equal distribution of breakfast and dinner biphasic insulin aspart doses. Insulin detemir remained once daily in 87% of patients.
Conclusions:  Modern insulin analogue regimens, adjusted to PG targets, enable a majority of people with T2DM to reach HbA_1c≤7.0% after failure of OADs and OAD-basal insulin therapy. Insulin-treated patients may benefit more from transfer to analogue basal–bolus therapy, while insulin-naive individuals benefit equally well from the more convenient biphasic analogue regimen.