1周1次胰岛素Icodec vs 1天1次甘精胰岛素U100治疗2型糖尿病胰岛素初治患者:系统评价和荟萃分析

IF 1 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Diabetes epidemiology and management Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.deman.2023.100181
Faiza Zakaria, Ahmed Kunwer Naveed, Mushood Ahmed, Rameen Rao, Areeba Shaikh, Anusha Abdul Muqeet Farid, Tehreem Ali, Muhammad Hasanain
{"title":"1周1次胰岛素Icodec vs 1天1次甘精胰岛素U100治疗2型糖尿病胰岛素初治患者:系统评价和荟萃分析","authors":"Faiza Zakaria, Ahmed Kunwer Naveed, Mushood Ahmed, Rameen Rao, Areeba Shaikh, Anusha Abdul Muqeet Farid, Tehreem Ali, Muhammad Hasanain","doi":"10.1016/j.deman.2023.100181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Insulin Therapy is essential for managing diabetes, but difficulties such as daily injections and hypoglycemia risk hinder patient compliance. Recent advancements have brought basal insulin analogs such as insulin icodec and insulin glargine U100 so in this study we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Once-Weekly Insulin icodec and Once-Daily insulin glargine-U100 in Insulin-Naive type 2 diabetic patients (T2DM). : The PRISMA guidelines were followed in conducting this meta-analysis. An electronic search was conducted utilizing databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, OvidSP, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL). The analysis findings were combined using a random-effects model. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD), whereas dichotomous outcomes were represented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). : 3 randomized control trials (RCTs) comprising 1436 patients were included in our analysis. Pooled analysis showed a significant difference in improved time with glucose range (%TIR) between icodec group and glargine U100 (MD=4.89; 95% CI= 2.95 to 6.82; P=<0.00001; I2=0%), reduction in HbA1c (MD=-0.19; 95% CI= -0.30 to -0.08; P=0.0009; I2=0%), risk of hypoglycemia alert (OR=1.47; 95% CI=1.18-1.84; P=0.0006; I2=0%). There was no significant difference in pooled analysis for fasting plasma glucose levels, severe hypoglycemia, and any adverse effects or hyperactivity events. : Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence that favored Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec over Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for patients with T2DM.","PeriodicalId":72796,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes epidemiology and management","volume":"165 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for type 2 diabetes in insulin naive patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Faiza Zakaria, Ahmed Kunwer Naveed, Mushood Ahmed, Rameen Rao, Areeba Shaikh, Anusha Abdul Muqeet Farid, Tehreem Ali, Muhammad Hasanain\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.deman.2023.100181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": Insulin Therapy is essential for managing diabetes, but difficulties such as daily injections and hypoglycemia risk hinder patient compliance. Recent advancements have brought basal insulin analogs such as insulin icodec and insulin glargine U100 so in this study we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Once-Weekly Insulin icodec and Once-Daily insulin glargine-U100 in Insulin-Naive type 2 diabetic patients (T2DM). : The PRISMA guidelines were followed in conducting this meta-analysis. An electronic search was conducted utilizing databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, OvidSP, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL). The analysis findings were combined using a random-effects model. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD), whereas dichotomous outcomes were represented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). : 3 randomized control trials (RCTs) comprising 1436 patients were included in our analysis. Pooled analysis showed a significant difference in improved time with glucose range (%TIR) between icodec group and glargine U100 (MD=4.89; 95% CI= 2.95 to 6.82; P=<0.00001; I2=0%), reduction in HbA1c (MD=-0.19; 95% CI= -0.30 to -0.08; P=0.0009; I2=0%), risk of hypoglycemia alert (OR=1.47; 95% CI=1.18-1.84; P=0.0006; I2=0%). There was no significant difference in pooled analysis for fasting plasma glucose levels, severe hypoglycemia, and any adverse effects or hyperactivity events. : Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence that favored Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec over Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for patients with T2DM.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes epidemiology and management\",\"volume\":\"165 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes epidemiology and management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deman.2023.100181\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes epidemiology and management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deman.2023.100181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

胰岛素治疗对于控制糖尿病是必不可少的,但是诸如每日注射和低血糖风险等困难阻碍了患者的依从性。最近的进展带来了基础胰岛素类似物,如胰岛素icodec和甘精胰岛素U100,因此在本研究中,我们旨在评估每周一次胰岛素icodec和一日一次甘精胰岛素U100在胰岛素初始型2型糖尿病患者(T2DM)中的疗效和安全性。本荟萃分析遵循PRISMA指南进行。利用PubMed、Google Scholar、OvidSP和Cochrane对照研究数据库(CENTRAL)等数据库进行电子检索。分析结果结合使用随机效应模型。连续结局用平均差(MD)表示,而二分结局用95%置信区间(95% ci)的比值比(ORs)表示。我们的分析纳入了3项随机对照试验(RCTs),共1436例患者。合并分析显示,icodec组与甘精氨酸U100组的改善时间与血糖范围(%TIR)有显著差异(MD=4.89;95% CI= 2.95 ~ 6.82;P = & lt; 0.00001;I2=0%), HbA1c降低(MD=-0.19;95% CI= -0.30 ~ -0.08;P = 0.0009;I2=0%),低血糖预警风险(OR=1.47;95%可信区间= 1.18 - -1.84;P = 0.0006;I2 = 0%)。在空腹血糖水平、严重低血糖和任何不良反应或多动事件的汇总分析中,没有显著差异。我们的系统回顾和荟萃分析提供的证据表明,对于T2DM患者,每周一次胰岛素Icodec优于每日一次甘精胰岛素U100。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for type 2 diabetes in insulin naive patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis
: Insulin Therapy is essential for managing diabetes, but difficulties such as daily injections and hypoglycemia risk hinder patient compliance. Recent advancements have brought basal insulin analogs such as insulin icodec and insulin glargine U100 so in this study we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Once-Weekly Insulin icodec and Once-Daily insulin glargine-U100 in Insulin-Naive type 2 diabetic patients (T2DM). : The PRISMA guidelines were followed in conducting this meta-analysis. An electronic search was conducted utilizing databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, OvidSP, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL). The analysis findings were combined using a random-effects model. Continuous outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD), whereas dichotomous outcomes were represented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). : 3 randomized control trials (RCTs) comprising 1436 patients were included in our analysis. Pooled analysis showed a significant difference in improved time with glucose range (%TIR) between icodec group and glargine U100 (MD=4.89; 95% CI= 2.95 to 6.82; P=<0.00001; I2=0%), reduction in HbA1c (MD=-0.19; 95% CI= -0.30 to -0.08; P=0.0009; I2=0%), risk of hypoglycemia alert (OR=1.47; 95% CI=1.18-1.84; P=0.0006; I2=0%). There was no significant difference in pooled analysis for fasting plasma glucose levels, severe hypoglycemia, and any adverse effects or hyperactivity events. : Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence that favored Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec over Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 for patients with T2DM.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetes epidemiology and management
Diabetes epidemiology and management Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 days
期刊最新文献
Innovative immunotherapies and emerging treatments in type 1 diabetes management Autoantibodies in type 1 diabetes: Prevalence and clinical profiles Reply to increase in diabetic deaths during COVID-19 pandemic. Some comments High prevalence of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, and identification of associated factors, in high-risk adults in Vietnam: A cross-sectional study editorial board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1