比较速效胰岛素类似物力司宝和阿斯巴特治疗糖尿病的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1080/14712598.2024.2371046
Rahul Kapur, Shivani Mittra, Geetanjali Tonpe, Adithi P, Praveen Raj, Uwe Gudat, Sandeep N Athalye
{"title":"比较速效胰岛素类似物力司宝和阿斯巴特治疗糖尿病的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾。","authors":"Rahul Kapur, Shivani Mittra, Geetanjali Tonpe, Adithi P, Praveen Raj, Uwe Gudat, Sandeep N Athalye","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2371046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated a potential move from one rapid-acting insulin analog to another, or their biosimilars, to aid better and faster decisions for diabetes management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. The MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing aspart/lispro in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 753 records retrieved, the six selected efficacy/safety RCTs and the additional three hand-searched pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics RCTs showed some heterogeneity in the presentation of the continuous variables; however, collectively, the outcomes demonstrated that lispro and aspart had comparable efficacy and safety in adult patients with T1D and T2D. Both treatments yielded a similar decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and had similar dosing and weight changes, with similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, similar hypoglycemic episodes in both T1D and T2D populations, and no clinically significant differences for hyperglycemia, occlusions or other infusion site/set complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Aspart and lispro demonstrate comparative safety and efficacy in patients with T1D/T2D. Since both are deemed equally suitable for controlling prandial glycemic excursions and both have similar safety attributes, they may be used interchangeably in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023376793.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"543-561"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting insulin analogs, lispro versus aspart, in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Rahul Kapur, Shivani Mittra, Geetanjali Tonpe, Adithi P, Praveen Raj, Uwe Gudat, Sandeep N Athalye\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14712598.2024.2371046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated a potential move from one rapid-acting insulin analog to another, or their biosimilars, to aid better and faster decisions for diabetes management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. The MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing aspart/lispro in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 753 records retrieved, the six selected efficacy/safety RCTs and the additional three hand-searched pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics RCTs showed some heterogeneity in the presentation of the continuous variables; however, collectively, the outcomes demonstrated that lispro and aspart had comparable efficacy and safety in adult patients with T1D and T2D. Both treatments yielded a similar decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and had similar dosing and weight changes, with similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, similar hypoglycemic episodes in both T1D and T2D populations, and no clinically significant differences for hyperglycemia, occlusions or other infusion site/set complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Aspart and lispro demonstrate comparative safety and efficacy in patients with T1D/T2D. Since both are deemed equally suitable for controlling prandial glycemic excursions and both have similar safety attributes, they may be used interchangeably in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023376793.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"543-561\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2371046\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2371046","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介我们评估了从一种速效胰岛素类似物到另一种速效胰岛素类似物或其生物仿制药的潜在转变,以帮助更好、更快地做出糖尿病管理决策:根据 PRISMA 报告指南进行了系统性文献综述。在 MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE 数据库中检索了在 1 型糖尿病(T1D)和 2 型糖尿病(T2D)中比较阿斯巴特/利血平的随机对照试验 (RCT)。采用 Cochrane 协作组织的偏倚风险评估标准对纳入研究的方法学质量进行了评估:在检索到的 754 条记录中,6 项选定的疗效/安全性 RCT 和另外 3 项手工检索的药代动力学/药效学 RCT 在连续变量的表现形式上存在一定的异质性;但是,总体结果表明,利血平和阿斯巴特在 T1D 和 T2D 成年患者中的疗效和安全性相当。两种治疗方法的HbA1c降幅相似,剂量和体重变化相似,TEAE和SAE报告相似,T1D和T2D人群的低血糖发作相似,高血糖、闭塞或其他输注部位/装置并发症无临床显著差异:Aspart和lispro对T1D/T2D患者的安全性和有效性具有可比性。由于这两种药物同样适用于控制餐前血糖波动,并且具有相似的安全性,因此可在临床实践中交替使用:CRD42023376793。
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
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting insulin analogs, lispro versus aspart, in the treatment of diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: We evaluated a potential move from one rapid-acting insulin analog to another, or their biosimilars, to aid better and faster decisions for diabetes management.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. The MEDLINE/EMBASE/COCHRANE databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing aspart/lispro in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment criteria.

Results: Of the 753 records retrieved, the six selected efficacy/safety RCTs and the additional three hand-searched pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics RCTs showed some heterogeneity in the presentation of the continuous variables; however, collectively, the outcomes demonstrated that lispro and aspart had comparable efficacy and safety in adult patients with T1D and T2D. Both treatments yielded a similar decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and had similar dosing and weight changes, with similar treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and serious adverse event (SAE) reporting, similar hypoglycemic episodes in both T1D and T2D populations, and no clinically significant differences for hyperglycemia, occlusions or other infusion site/set complications.

Conclusions: Aspart and lispro demonstrate comparative safety and efficacy in patients with T1D/T2D. Since both are deemed equally suitable for controlling prandial glycemic excursions and both have similar safety attributes, they may be used interchangeably in clinical practice.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023376793.

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
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 医学-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy. Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development. The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease. The journal welcomes: Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results; Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
期刊最新文献
Comparing anti-drug antibody signal-to-noise ratios to assess immunogenicity and interchangeability in adalimumab biosimilar studies. Bispecific therapeutics: a state-of-the-art review on the combination of immune checkpoint ‎inhibition with costimulatory and non-checkpoint targeted therapy. Endoscopic endpoints in biologic clinical trials and beyond: the case for Crohn's Disease. Immunobiology of biliary tract cancer and recent clinical findings in approved and upcoming immune checkpoint inhibitors. Emerging peptide-based technology for biofilm control.
×
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