甘精胰岛素对老年2型糖尿病患者降糖的疗效观察

选取68例老年(年龄>65岁)2型糖尿病患者,起始三天停用原来降糖药物,第四天起给予中效胰岛素(NPH)联合餐前短效胰岛素皮下注射强化胰岛素治疗,血糖相对平稳后,分为二组,分别采用睡前注射甘精胰岛素联合那格列奈口服和预混30R胰岛素皮下注射治疗12周。比较治疗后两组血糖达标时间、平均空腹血糖、血糖漂移、胰岛素用量、低血糖发生率。结果:甘精胰岛素组在血糖达标时间、治疗后空腹血糖、日内血糖漂移、低血糖发生率方面均低于预混胰岛素组(P<0.05)。结论:老年冠心病合并2型糖尿病患者中,甘精胰岛素联合那格列奈治疗,疗效确切、易于接受、低血糖反应少。     

门冬胰岛素联合甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病的疗效观察

目的探讨三餐前门冬胰岛素联合甘精胰岛素对血糖控制较差的糖尿病患者的疗效。方法选择血糖控制较差的糖尿病患者60例,随机分为两组：一组以三餐前门冬胰岛素联合睡前甘精胰岛素治疗（Asp＋Gla组）,另一组以三餐前诺和灵R联合睡前诺和灵N治疗（RI＋NPH组）。比较两组治疗后血糖达标时间、FBG、2hBG、血糖波动、胰岛素用量、低血糖发生率。结果Asp＋Gla组降糖快速稳定,血糖达标时间短,治疗后FBG、2hBG更理想,日内血糖波动幅度小,低血糖发生率低,优于RI＋NPH组（P均〈0．05）。结论对血糖控制较差的2型糖尿病患者,三餐前门冬胰岛素联合睡前甘精胰岛素治疗,低血糖发生率低,降糖效果显著。     

甘精胰岛素强化治疗2型糖尿病的疗效与安全性分析

60例2型糖尿病患者随机分为两组：一组给予甘精胰岛素和门冬胰岛素治疗,一组给予中效和短效人胰岛素治疗,比较两组降糖效果、达标时间、胰岛素用量和低血糖事件发生率。结果：治疗后两组FPG、2HPG、胰岛素用量无显著性差异（P〉0．05）;达标时间：甘精组短于NPH组（P〈0．01）,低血糖事件发生率：甘精组低于NPH组（P〈0．05）。结论：甘精胰岛素联合门冬胰岛素能有效模拟人的生理胰岛素分泌,尽早使血糖平稳达标,且低血糖发生率较低。     

来得时对老年2型糖尿病合并冠心病患者血糖波动的疗效观察

目的比较来得时（甘精胰岛素）和中效低精蛋白生物合成人胰岛素（NPH）对老年2型糖尿病（T2DM）合并冠心病患者血糖波动的疗效和安全性。方法41例口服降糖药治疗但血糖控制未达标的老年T2DM合并冠心病患者,随机分为来得时治疗组（n=21）和NPH治疗组（n=20）,分别于每日睡前增加1次来得时、NPH皮下注射。对比分析空腹血糖（FBG）、糖化血红蛋白（HbA1 c）和低血糖的发生情况。结果两组治疗后FBG、HBA1 c、FBG达标时间、低血糖发生率比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论来得时优于NPH,能有效、更安全的控制老年T2DM合并冠心病患者的血糖波动。     

甘精胰岛素联合罗格列酮在2型糖尿病初始胰岛素治疗中的疗效观察

目的观察甘精胰岛素与罗格列酮联用治疗口服降糖药血糖控制差的2型糖尿病患者的疗效及安全性。方法选取口服降糖药血糖控制差的2型糖尿病患者56例,随机分为甘精胰岛素组和中效精蛋白胰岛素组,两组均联合口服罗格列酮。持续观察12周,比较两组空腹血糖（FBG）、餐后2小时血糖（2hPBG）、糖化血红蛋白（HbAlc）、空腹胰岛素（FINS）、胰岛素用量、空腹血糖达标时间、短效胰岛素注射次数、低血糖出现次数,计算胰岛素抵抗指数（IRI）,监测肝肾功能、血常规及体重增加情况。结果甘精胰岛素组FBG达标时间、HbAlc水平及出现低血糖次数、体重增加值均低于中效精蛋白胰岛素组（P〈0．05）;平均甘精胰岛素使用剂量大于中效精蛋白胰岛素;加用短效胰岛素诺和灵R的量和注射次数及胰岛素总量显著低于中效精蛋白胰岛素组（P〈0．01）。结论口服降糖药疗效差的2型糖尿病患者应用甘精胰岛素联合罗格列酮治疗,有更显著的降糖效果,临床应用安全。     

皮下注射与胰岛素泵持续皮下输注胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病效果比较

目的比较皮下注射与胰岛素泵持续皮下输注胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病患者的效果及成本—效价比。方法将60例2型糖尿病患者随机分为观察组和对照组各30例,观察组分别于早、中、晚餐前即刻皮下注射门冬胰岛素,甘精胰岛素睡前皮下注射1次,起始剂量0.2 IU/（kg/d）;对照组应用胰岛素泵持续性皮下门冬胰岛素输注治疗,均治疗2周。治疗前后均行空腹血糖、三餐后2 h血糖、睡前血糖测定,比较治疗前后血糖水平及胰岛素用量、血糖达标时间、低血糖发生率以及平均住院费用。结果两组治疗后空腹血糖及餐后2 h血糖、睡前血糖、血糖达标时间、胰岛素用量、低血糖发生率比较均无统计学意义,但观察组平均住院费明显低于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论皮下注射与胰岛素泵持续皮下输注胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病效果相当,但皮下注射胰岛素者住院费用低,具有更好的成本—效价比。     

甘精胰岛素加阿卡波糖与中、短效胰岛素联合治疗老年2型糖尿病

112例老年T2DM患者,起始第一周先给予NPH联合餐前短效胰岛素治疗,血糖相对平稳后,随机分为睡前Glg联合阿卡波糖口服和继续NPH联合餐前短效治疗3个月。结果：Glg组在血糖达标时间、治疗后FBG、日内血糖漂移、低血糖发生率方面均低于NPH组（P〈0．05）。结论：老年T2DM患者Glg联合阿卡波糖治疗,降糖效果显著,安全性高。     

甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病

56例口服降糖药控制不理想的2型糖尿病患者按随机分为甘精胰岛素治疗组和诺和灵N组。结果治疗后甘精胰岛素组在血糖达标时间、空腹血糖、日内血糖漂移、低血糖发生率方面均低于中效胰岛素组（P〈0．05）。结论应用甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍片降糖效果显著并能减少夜间低血糖发生。     

老年糖尿病胰岛素强化治疗中基础胰岛素的选择及安全性比较

目的探讨在老年糖尿病胰岛素强化治疗中,甘精胰岛素作为基础胰岛素与中效胰岛素(NPH)的安全性和有效性的比较。方法将本人在2010年9月～2012年5月收治的49例老年2型糖尿病患者随机分为两组,其中甘精胰岛素组31例,NPH组18例,分别采用甘精胰岛素加门冬胰岛素和NPH加门冬胰岛素进行胰岛素强化治疗2周,观察治疗前后患者的餐前血糖、空腹血糖(FPG)、糖化血清蛋白(GSP)等各项相关指标的变化,并比较两组患者达标所用时间、基础胰岛素的用量以及发生低血糖的次数和其他不良反应。结果强化治疗两周后,甘精胰岛素组空腹和晚餐前血糖明显低于NPH组,GSP和达标时间均明显小于NPH组,甘精胰岛素的用量明显小于NPH组NPH用量,P值均<0.05,有统计学意义。甘精胰岛素组出现低血糖症状1例(1/31),NPH组为4例(4/18)。结论选用甘精胰岛素作为老年糖尿病胰岛素强化治疗中的基础胰岛素,具有注射次数少,所需剂量少,发生低血糖的风险低,血糖波动小等优点,比中效胰岛素更适合老年糖尿病患者.     

动态血糖监测甘精胰岛素治疗老年2型糖尿病的研究

目的通过动态血糖监测（CGMS），评估甘精胰岛素治疗老年2型糖尿病（T2DM）的疗效和安全性。方法对39例口服药联合治疗空腹血糖控制不佳的老年T2DM患者，加用甘精胰岛素（IG）和中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素（NPH）睡前皮下注射，治疗12周。治疗前后测定空腹血糖（FPG）、餐后2h血糖（2hPG）、糖化血红蛋白（HbAlc）、空腹C肽及餐后2hC肽等，并进行比较。结果治疗后，2组血糖和HbAlc均较治疗前下降（P〈0．05或P〈0．01），IG组血糖下降更明显（P〈0．05），2组HbAlc无明显差异（P〉0．05），IG组治疗后餐后2hC肽水平提高（P〈0．05）。CGMS显示IG组24h血糖曲线平缓，血糖达标时间延长，夜间低血糖的发生率低（P〈0．01）．血糖波动幅度小。结论IG作为老年T2DM患者的基础胰岛素替代治疗，血糖控制达标率高，胰岛素剂量控制更方便、安全，优于NPH。     

甘精胰岛素联合口服降糖药物对血糖控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者的疗效观察

目的 评价甘精胰岛素(来得时(R))与盐酸吡格列酮和二甲双胍联合应用治疗口服降糖药物控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者的有效性和安全性.方法 采用随机法将78例口服降糖药物控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者分为A、B两组.A组为甘精胰岛素(来得时(R))组,B组为精蛋白锌胰岛素(诺和灵N)组,两组均口服吡格列酮和二甲双胍,观察治疗后空腹血...     

Evaluation of the superiority of insulin glargine as basal insulin replacement by continuous glucose monitoring system

To evaluate the superiority of insulin glargine as basal insulin replacement by continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) whose blood glucose was not well controlled with sulphanylureas were enrolled. At first, they were treated with extended-release glipizide (glucotrol XL) 5mg/d before breakfast for 2 weeks, then randomized to combination treatment with glargine (16 patients) or NPH (8 patients) and treated for 12 weeks. CGMS were carried in the second week after treatment with glucotrol XL, and in the 12th week after combination treatment. The data of CGMS showed: (1) When FPG were well controlled in both groups (glargine group versus NPH group: 6.0+/-1.0 mmol/L versus 5.8+/-1.3 mmol/L), the blood glucose level at 3:00 a.m. (5.1+/-0.9 mmol/L versus 4.2+/-0.8 mmol/L) were higher (P<0.05), TPG< or =3.0 mmol/L at night were lower (2.56+/-1.79 versus 5.88+/-1.96), and the rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia (1/16 versus 4/8) were less (P=0.028) in glargine group than those in NPH group. (2) CGMS showed that the daily blood glucose profile excursion were more smoother in glargine group than those in NPH group. In conclusion, it was confirmed with CGMS that compared with traditionally basal insulin replacement with NPH, the combination treatment with glargine injection at bedtime may be predominant for stabilizing the daily blood glucose profile excursion and decreasing the nocturnal hypoglycemia events incidence. So glargine may be a more ideal basal insulin replacement than NPH.     

Safety and efficacy of insulin glargine (HOE 901) versus NPH insulin in combination with oral treatment in Type 2 diabetic patients

Aims A European, randomized, 29‐centre, open‐label study compared the safety and efficacy of two formulations of insulin glargine and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) human insulin, in combination with oral agents, in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods Two‐hundred‐and‐four patients with Type 2 DM, in whom oral treatment alone was inadequate, were randomized to insulin glargine with 30 µg/ml zinc [insulin glargine (30)], or insulin glargine with 80 µg/ml zinc [insulin glargine (80)] or NPH insulin subcutaneously once daily. Insulin was titrated to aim for fasting blood glucose (FBG) values between 4 and 7 mmol/l. All participants received oral therapy during the 3‐week titration phase and 1‐week maintenance phase of the trial. Results No differences between treatment groups were observed in adjusted mean fasting plasma glucose; significant decreases of 3.4 mmol/l, 3.5 mmol/l and 3.1 mmol/l were observed within the insulin glargine (30), insulin glargine (80) and NPH insulin groups, respectively (P < 0.0001 in each case). No differences between groups, but significant changes within groups, were observed in self‐monitored FBG, mean FBG, blood glucose profile, stability of FBG, nocturnal blood glucose, fasting serum C‐peptide, non‐esterified fatty acids, haemoglobin A_1c, fructosamine and fasting serum insulin. A significantly greater proportion of NPH insulin patients experienced symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemia (19.1 NPH group vs. 7.3% glargine groups; P = 0.0123). Both insulins were well tolerated; one patient in each group experienced an injection site reaction. Conclusions Insulin glargine is as safe and effective as NPH insulin given once daily and in this study caused fewer episodes of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Diabet. Med. 20, 545–551 (2003)     

Comparison of fasting capillary glucose variability between insulin glargine and NPH

The aim of this study was to compare coefficient of variation of fasting capillary blood glucose (FBG) between insulin glargine and NPH in T2DM with poorly controlled by oral antidiabetic drugs. The results demonstrated that insulin glargine was more potent in improving glycemic control than NPH with stable FBG.     

Efficacy of conversion from bedtime NPH insulin to morning insulin glargine in type 2 diabetic patients on basal-prandial insulin therapy

In normal subjects, approximately half of the daily insulin requirement constitutes basal insulin. We investigated whether increasing the dose of insulin glargine up to half of the total insulin requirement could lead to better glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients who were treated on basal-prandial insulin therapy. A total of 62 patients with type 2 diabetes on mealtime rapid-acting insulin analogue and bedtime NPH were randomized to either continuation of bedtime NPH (n=31) or morning glargine (n=31) for 6 months while continuing the aspart/lispro at each meal. The two groups were matched for age, sex, diabetes duration, BMI, HbA(1C), endogenous insulin secretion, and proportion of numbers using aspart/lispro and using oral hypoglycemic agents. The dose of insulin glargine was increased by 2-4 units to meet the target fasting blood glucose, whereas the dose of NPH was principally unchanged as a control group. Mean HbA(1C) at baseline was similar between patients with glargine and NPH (7.2% versus 6.9%). The percentage of glargine dose increased significantly (31% at baseline to 48% at 6 months) without any significant changes in total insulin dose. Mean HbA(1C) at 3 months was 6.6% with glargine and 7.0% with NPH (P<0.0001, adjusted mean change between-treatment difference 0.6% [95% CI 0.3-0.9]), and the values at 6 months were 6.6% and 6.9%, respectively (P=0.007). Frequency of hypoglycemia did not differ between the groups. Increasing the dose of glargine without changing the total daily insulin dose resulted in significantly better glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients on basal-prandial insulin therapy. Conversion from bedtime NPH to morning glargine appears efficacious with no increase in frequency of hypoglycemia.     

Spotlight on Insulin Glargine in Type 1 and 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Insulin glargine is a recombinant human insulin analog produced by DNA technology using a nonpathogenic strain of Escherichia coli. Two modifications of human insulin result in a stable molecule which is soluble in slightly acidic conditions (pH 4.0) and precipitates in the neutral pH of subcutaneous tissue. Because of these properties, absorption of insulin glargine is delayed and the analog provides a fairly constant, basal insulin supply without peaks in plasma insulin levels for approximately 24 hours, similar to that achieved by a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Insulin glargine is indicated as a once daily subcutaneous injection to provide basal glycemic control in adults and children aged >6 years with type 1 diabetes mellitus and in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Fasting plasma glucose and fasting blood glucose levels generally improved to a greater extent in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus receiving insulin glargine than patients who administered Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. In patients with type 1 or 2 disease, glycosylated hemoglobin levels were slightly reduced and to a similar extent with insulin glargine and NPH insulin. Most clinical trials in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus demonstrated a lower incidence of hypoglycemia, especially nocturnal hypoglycemia, with insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin. One of the most common adverse events with insulin glargine treatment was injection site pain which, in some studies, occurred more frequently than in patients receiving NPH insulin. In all cases the symptoms were mild and treatment discontinuation was not required. Otherwise, the drug is well tolerated and does not appear to be immunogenic. In conclusion, insulin glargine once a day provides basal control of glycemia for approximately 24 hours without inducing peaks in plasma insulin levels in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. In long-term, well designed trials insulin glargine once daily improved glycemic control at least as effectively as NPH insulin given once or twice daily. The drug was well tolerated and in most studies the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly less in patients treated with insulin glargine compared with patients receiving NPH insulin. Therefore, insulin glargine is likely to be a useful addition to the armamentarium of insulin therapy by establishing basal glycemic control with once daily administration and a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia.     

分析老年糖尿病患者应用甘精胰岛素联合阿卡波糖治疗的效果

目的探讨甘精胰岛素联合阿卡波糖在老年糖尿病患者中的临床疗效。方法选取该院2018年7月—2019年7月收治的113例老年糖尿病患者作为研究对象,经随机数字表法,划分A组(n=56,阿卡波糖)和B组(n=57,甘精胰岛素+阿卡波糖),比较两组临床疗效、血糖指标。结果B组患者临床治疗总有效率显著高于A组;经治疗,B组患者空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后2 h血糖(2 hPG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbAlc)水平明显低于A组。两组之间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在老年糖尿病患者中应用甘精胰岛素+阿卡波糖,临床疗效显著,使患者的空腹血糖、餐后2 h血糖、糖化血红蛋白等指标得到了明显改善,安全性强。     

预混胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病患者转为甘精胰岛素联合口服药治疗的疗效分析

目评价甘精胰岛素联合口服降糖药物(OADs)治疗方案对使用预混胰岛素血糖控制欠佳的2型糖尿病患者的疗效及安全性.方法 预混胰岛素30/70单独或联合使用OADs血糖控制不良的2型糖尿病患者50例,随机分为治疗组(停用预混胰岛素,改为皮下注射甘精胰岛素联合OADs,n=30)和对照组(继续使用预混胰岛素早、晚餐前皮下注射...     

A randomized multicentre trial of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND: To compare insulin glargine with NPH human insulin for basal insulin supply in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: People with type 1 diabetes (n = 585), aged 17-77 years, were randomized to insulin glargine once daily at bedtime or NPH insulin either once- (at bedtime) or twice-daily (in the morning and at bedtime) according to their prior treatment regimen and followed for 28 weeks in an open-label, multicentre study. Both groups continued with pre-meal unmodified human insulin. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two insulins in change in glycated haemoglobin from baseline to endpoint (insulin glargine 0.21 +/- 0.05% (mean +/- standard error), NPH insulin 0.10 +/- 0.05%). At endpoint, self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG) had decreased similarly in each group (insulin glargine -1.17 +/- 0.12 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.89 +/- 0.12 mmol/L; p = 0.07). However, people on >1 basal insulin injection per day prior to the study had a clinically relevant decrease in FBG on insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (insulin glargine -1.38 +/- 0.15 mmol/L, NPH insulin -0.72 +/- 0.15 mmol/L; p < 0.01). No significant differences in the number of people reporting >or=1 hypoglycaemic episode were found between the two groups, including severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Insulin glargine was well tolerated, with a similar rate of local injection and systemic adverse events versus NPH insulin. CONCLUSIONS: A single, bedtime, subcutaneous dose of insulin glargine provided a level of glycaemic control at least as effective as NPH insulin, without an increased risk of hypoglycaemia.     

Glargine is superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn for improving glycated haemoglobin and fasting blood glucose levels during intensive insulin therapy

AIM: To compare glycaemic control and symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates with glargine versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in poorly controlled type 1 diabetes patients. METHODS: Patients (n = 125) received preprandial insulin lispro and either glargine (n = 62) or NPH (n = 63) at bedtime for 30 weeks in a multicentre, randomized, single-blind (a blinded investigator made titration decisions) study. Basal insulin dosage was titrated to achieve fasting blood glucose (FBG) values < 5.5 mmol/L. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups (mean diabetes duration 17.5 +/- 10.1 years) except mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), which was lower in the glargine versus NPH group (9.2 +/- 1.1% vs 9.7 +/- 1.3%; P < 0.02). At end-point, mean HbA(1c) was 8.3 versus 9.1% for the glargine versus NPH groups. Adjusted least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline was -1.04 versus -0.51%, a significant treatment benefit of 0.53% for HbA(1c) in favour of glargine (P < 0.01). Mean baseline FBG were similar for the glargine and NPH groups (11.2 vs 11.4 mmol/L). The means for end-point FBG were 7.9 versus 9.0 mmol/L. Adjusted LSM change from baseline was -3.46 versus -2.34 mmol/L, with a significant difference of 1.12 mmol/L in favour of glargine (P < 0.05). There were similar total numbers of daytime mild, moderate or severe hypoglycaemia episodes in the two treatment arms. However, significantly fewer moderate or severe nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were observed in the glargine group (P = 0.04 and P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Glargine is superior to NPH for improving HbA(1c) and FBG levels during intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes, and is associated with less severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia.