替特米特胰岛素与胰岛素NPH在糖尿病孕妇中的安全性和有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Minerva obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2023-10-25 DOI:10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05318-6
Kaneez Fatima, Ahmed K Siddiqi, Saad Shakil, Sareema E Akhtar, Maryam S Quraishy, Khadija Siddiqui, Esha Rafique, Muhammad T Maniya
{"title":"替特米特胰岛素与胰岛素NPH在糖尿病孕妇中的安全性和有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Kaneez Fatima,&nbsp;Ahmed K Siddiqi,&nbsp;Saad Shakil,&nbsp;Sareema E Akhtar,&nbsp;Maryam S Quraishy,&nbsp;Khadija Siddiqui,&nbsp;Esha Rafique,&nbsp;Muhammad T Maniya","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05318-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The relative efficacy and safety of insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and detemir (IDet), in the management of diabetes in pregnancy remains unclear. We sought to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effect of NPH versus IDet during pregnancy on clinically relevant maternal and fetal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>MEDLINE and Google Scholar were queried from inception till September 2022 for original studies comparing NPH with IDet for management of diabetes during pregnancy. Data was pooled using a random-effects model, to generate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). I<sup>2</sup> test was used to assess the magnitude of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity. As less than ten studies were included in our analysis, funnel plots were not made to evaluate publication bias. A P value of ≤0.05 was considered significant in all cases.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Our search of the literature yielded 1087 articles initially, of which seven articles comprising 1396 patients, were included in our analysis. All included articles were of reasonably high methodological quality. Our pooled analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference between the efficacy of insulin Detemir and insulin NPH as assessed by the HbA1c values from baseline. For safety outcomes, insulin detemir was significantly associated with a greater gestational age at delivery (WMD=0.39, 95%CI: 0.07 to 0.71, P=0.02) and lower incidence of hypoglycemic events (RR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.48 to 0.86, P=0.003) in-contrast to insulin NPH.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings demonstrate that both, insulin IDet and insulin NPH have a similar efficacy in reducing HbA1c from baseline. However, insulin detemir was associated with lesser incidence of maternal hypoglycemic events and greater gestational age at delivery, compared to NPH.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and efficacy of insulin detemir vs. insulin NPH in pregnant women with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kaneez Fatima,&nbsp;Ahmed K Siddiqi,&nbsp;Saad Shakil,&nbsp;Sareema E Akhtar,&nbsp;Maryam S Quraishy,&nbsp;Khadija Siddiqui,&nbsp;Esha Rafique,&nbsp;Muhammad T Maniya\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05318-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The relative efficacy and safety of insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and detemir (IDet), in the management of diabetes in pregnancy remains unclear. We sought to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effect of NPH versus IDet during pregnancy on clinically relevant maternal and fetal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>MEDLINE and Google Scholar were queried from inception till September 2022 for original studies comparing NPH with IDet for management of diabetes during pregnancy. Data was pooled using a random-effects model, to generate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). I<sup>2</sup> test was used to assess the magnitude of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity. As less than ten studies were included in our analysis, funnel plots were not made to evaluate publication bias. A P value of ≤0.05 was considered significant in all cases.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Our search of the literature yielded 1087 articles initially, of which seven articles comprising 1396 patients, were included in our analysis. All included articles were of reasonably high methodological quality. Our pooled analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference between the efficacy of insulin Detemir and insulin NPH as assessed by the HbA1c values from baseline. For safety outcomes, insulin detemir was significantly associated with a greater gestational age at delivery (WMD=0.39, 95%CI: 0.07 to 0.71, P=0.02) and lower incidence of hypoglycemic events (RR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.48 to 0.86, P=0.003) in-contrast to insulin NPH.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings demonstrate that both, insulin IDet and insulin NPH have a similar efficacy in reducing HbA1c from baseline. However, insulin detemir was associated with lesser incidence of maternal hypoglycemic events and greater gestational age at delivery, compared to NPH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05318-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05318-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:胰岛素中性鱼精蛋白Hagedorn(NPH)和地特胺(IDet)治疗妊娠期糖尿病的相对疗效和安全性尚不清楚。我们试图进行一项最新的系统综述和荟萃分析,以研究妊娠期NPH与IDet对临床相关孕产妇和胎儿结局的影响。证据获取:从一开始到2022年9月,MEDLINE和Google Scholar被问及比较NPH和IDet治疗妊娠期糖尿病的原始研究。使用随机效应模型汇集数据,以生成二分结果的风险比(RR)和连续结果的加权平均差(WMD),以及95%置信区间(CI)。I2检验用于评估异质性的大小。进行敏感性分析以探索异质性的潜在来源。由于我们的分析中只包括不到十项研究,因此没有进行漏斗图来评估发表偏倚。在所有病例中,P值≤0.05被认为是显著的。证据综合:我们对文献的搜索最初产生了1087篇文章,其中7篇文章包括1396名患者,被纳入我们的分析。所有纳入的文章都具有相当高的方法学质量。我们的汇总分析表明,通过基线HbA1c值评估,Detemir胰岛素和NPH胰岛素的疗效之间没有统计学上的显著差异。就安全性结果而言,与胰岛素NPH相比,地特胰岛素与分娩时更大的胎龄(WMD=0.39,95%CI:0.07至0.71,P=0.02)和更低的低血糖事件发生率(RR=0.64,95%CI:0.48至0.86,P=0.003)显著相关。结论:我们的研究结果表明,胰岛素IDet和胰岛素NPH在从基线降低HbA1c方面具有相似的疗效。然而,与NPH相比,地特胰岛素与母亲低血糖事件的发生率较低和分娩时胎龄较大有关。
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
Safety and efficacy of insulin detemir vs. insulin NPH in pregnant women with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: The relative efficacy and safety of insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and detemir (IDet), in the management of diabetes in pregnancy remains unclear. We sought to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effect of NPH versus IDet during pregnancy on clinically relevant maternal and fetal outcomes.

Evidence acquisition: MEDLINE and Google Scholar were queried from inception till September 2022 for original studies comparing NPH with IDet for management of diabetes during pregnancy. Data was pooled using a random-effects model, to generate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). I2 test was used to assess the magnitude of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity. As less than ten studies were included in our analysis, funnel plots were not made to evaluate publication bias. A P value of ≤0.05 was considered significant in all cases.

Evidence synthesis: Our search of the literature yielded 1087 articles initially, of which seven articles comprising 1396 patients, were included in our analysis. All included articles were of reasonably high methodological quality. Our pooled analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference between the efficacy of insulin Detemir and insulin NPH as assessed by the HbA1c values from baseline. For safety outcomes, insulin detemir was significantly associated with a greater gestational age at delivery (WMD=0.39, 95%CI: 0.07 to 0.71, P=0.02) and lower incidence of hypoglycemic events (RR=0.64, 95%CI: 0.48 to 0.86, P=0.003) in-contrast to insulin NPH.

Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that both, insulin IDet and insulin NPH have a similar efficacy in reducing HbA1c from baseline. However, insulin detemir was associated with lesser incidence of maternal hypoglycemic events and greater gestational age at delivery, compared to NPH.

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
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
期刊最新文献
Clinical features and their associations with umbilical cord gas abnormalities. Computerized cardiotocography and fetal heart response to maternal coffee intake: a prospective study. New characteristics of polycystic ovary syndrome phenotypes according to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-based study of urinary steroid metabolome. Dysgerminoma of the ovary. Racial and ethnic disparities in non-invasive prenatal testing adherence: a retrospective cohort study.
×
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