Meta-analysis of insulin aspart versus regular human insulin used in a basal-bolus regimen for the treatment of diabetes mellitus (在基础-餐时糖尿病治疗方案中使用门冬胰岛素与使用常规人胰岛素对照研究的Meta分析)

• Published in: Journal of diabetes 2013-12, Vol.5 (4), p.482-491
• Main Authors: Heller, Simon, Bode, Bruce, Kozlovski, Plamen, Svendsen, Anne Louise
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Confidence intervals; Diabetes; Diabetes Mellitus - drug therapy; Diabetes Mellitus - epidemiology; Female; Glycated Hemoglobin A - analysis; human blood A1c protein; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents - therapeutic use; Insulin; Insulin - therapeutic use; insulin aspart; Insulin Aspart - therapeutic use; Male; meta-analysis; Middle Aged; Original; Postprandial Period - drug effects; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data; regular human insulin; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult; 人血A1c蛋白，低血糖，门冬胰岛素，常规人胰岛素，Meta分析
• ISSN: 1753-0393; 1753-0407
• DOI: 10.1111/1753-0407.12060

Background:  The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy of two different insulin formulations, insulin aspart (IAsp) and regular human insulin (RHI), for prandial insulin coverage with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin as basal insulin using a meta‐analysis approach. The primary endpoint was change in A1c over time. Secondary endpoints included incidence of hypoglycemia and postprandial glycemic control. Methods Clinical trials (Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes) complying with Good Clinical Practice, and with individual patient data, were included in the meta‐analysis. Trials were randomized, consisting of (at least) two treatment arms and had a minimum duration of 12 weeks. Estimates were calculated using fixed‐effects and random‐effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed for each analysis. The effect of baseline parameters on A1c was analyzed in extended simultaneous models. Results The mean difference in A1c was 0.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] [−0.15; −0.04], P