6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Basal Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: 28-week comparison of insulin glargine (HOE 901) and NPH insulin

      , , , , ,
      Diabetes Care
      American Diabetes Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To determine the safety and efficacy of the long-acting analog insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes who were previously treated with insulin alone. A total of 518 subjects with type 2 diabetes who were receiving NPH insulin with or without regular insulin for postprandial control were randomized to receive insulin glargine (HOE 901) once daily (n = 259) or NPH insulin once or twice daily in = 259) for 28 weeks in an open-label, multicenter trial. Doses were adjusted to obtain target fasting glucose <6.7 mmol/l. At study end point, the median total daily insulin dose in both treatment groups was 0.75 IU/kg. The treatment groups showed similar improvements in HbA1c from baseline to end point on intent-to-treat analysis. The mean change (means +/- SD) in HbA1c from baseline to end point was similar in the insulin glargine group (-0.41 +/- 0.1%) and the NPH group (-0.59 +/- 0.1%) after patients began with an average baseline HbA1c of approximately 8.5%. The treatments were associated with similar reductions in fasting glucose levels. Overall, mild symptomatic hypoglycemia was similar in insulin glargine subjects (61.4%) and NPH insulin subjects (66.%) However, nocturnal hypoglycemia in the insulin glargine group was reduced by 25% during the treatment period after the dose-titration phase(26.5 vs. 35.5%, P = 0.0136). Subjects in the insulin glargine group experienced less weight gain than those in the NPH group (0.4 vs. 1.4 kg, P < 0.0007). In patients with type 2 diabetes, once-daily bedtime insulin glargine is as effective as once- or twice-daily NPH in improving and maintaining glycemic control. In addition, insulin glargine deonstrates a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia and less weight gain compared with NPH insulin.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study 16: Overview of 6 Years' Therapy of Type II Diabetes: A Progressive Disease

            (1995)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Less nocturnal hypoglycemia and better post-dinner glucose control with bedtime insulin glargine compared with bedtime NPH insulin during insulin combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. HOE 901/3002 Study Group.

              Available basal insulin formulations do not provide a constant and reliable 24-h insulin supply. We compared the efficacy and safety of glargine (a long-acting insulin analog) and NPH insulins in insulin-naive type 2 diabetic patients treated with oral antidiabetic agents. There were 426 type 2 diabetic patients (age 59 +/- 9 years, BMI 28.9 +/- 4.3 kg/m2, mean +/- SD) with poor glycemic control on oral antidiabetic agents randomized to treatment for 1 year with bedtime insulin glargine or bedtime NPH insulin. Oral agents were continued unchanged. The fasting blood glucose (FBG) target was 6.7 mmol/l (120 mg/dl). Average glycemic control improved similarly with both insulins (HbA(1c), [reference range <6.5%] 8.3 +/- 0.1 vs. 8.2 +/- 0.1% at 1 year, glargine vs. NPH, mean +/- SEM, P < 0.001 vs. baseline for both). However, there was less nocturnal hypoglycemia (9.9 vs. 24.0% of all patients, glargine vs. NPH, P < 0.001) and lower post-dinner glucose concentrations (9.9 +/- 0.2 vs. 10.7 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P < 0.02) with insulin glargine than with NPH. Insulin doses and weight gain were comparable. In patients reaching target FBG, HbA(1c) averaged 7.7 and 7.6% in the glargine and NPH groups at 1 year. Use of insulin glargine compared with NPH is associated with less nocturnal hypoglycemia and lower post-dinner glucose levels. These data are consistent with peakless and longer duration of action of insulin glargine compared with NPH. Achievement of acceptable average glucose control requires titration of the insulin dose to an FBG target < or =6.7 mmol/l. These data support use of insulin glargine instead of NPH in insulin combination regimens in type 2 diabetes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Care
                Diabetes Care
                American Diabetes Association
                0149-5992
                1935-5548
                April 01 2001
                April 01 2001
                : 24
                : 4
                : 631-636
                Article
                10.2337/diacare.24.4.631
                11315821
                4456dc99-0211-44b5-8b55-90384aa01e07
                © 2001
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article