Cargando…

Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin used in pregnant women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized study was conducted in diabetic pregnant women (n=240) (including 132 with pregestational diabetes a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: ji, Jing, He, Zhangya, Yang, Zhao, Mi, Yang, Guo, Na, Zhao, Hong, Gao, Jiayi, Ma, Zhengfeei, Luo, Xiaoqin, Han, Zhen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7254127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32265255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001155
_version_ 1783539471751315456
author ji, Jing
He, Zhangya
Yang, Zhao
Mi, Yang
Guo, Na
Zhao, Hong
Gao, Jiayi
Ma, Zhengfeei
Luo, Xiaoqin
Han, Zhen
author_facet ji, Jing
He, Zhangya
Yang, Zhao
Mi, Yang
Guo, Na
Zhao, Hong
Gao, Jiayi
Ma, Zhengfeei
Luo, Xiaoqin
Han, Zhen
author_sort ji, Jing
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin used in pregnant women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized study was conducted in diabetic pregnant women (n=240) (including 132 with pregestational diabetes and 108 with gestational diabetes). All patients were randomly divided into two groups: IDet group (n=120) treated with IDet plus short acting insulin Novolin-R before three meals (RRR–IDet plan), and NPH group treated with NPH plus Novolin-R before three meals (RRR–NPH plan). Patients were enrolled during 12–28 gestation weeks and followed up until delivery. RESULTS: Basal characteristics, such as age, enrollment gestational weeks, average HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were similar between two groups. After 1 week of treatment, the FPG of IDet group were significantly lower than NPH group (p<0.05) and the time required to reach the targeted blood glucose level was significantly shorter (p<0.001). After 3 months of treatment, the HbA1c level in the two groups was normalized but there was no significant difference in HbA1c level. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two therapeutic approaches; however, the incidence of hypoglycemia in IDet group was remarkably lower than that of NPH group (p<0.05). The adverse drug reactions were rare and similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of gestational diabetes, both RRR–IDet plan and RRR–NPH plan were reported to control blood glucose effectively. Compared with NPH, IDet could control blood glucose and reached the targets faster and more effectively, thus reducing the number of insulin injections and the incidence of hypoglycemia in pregnant women without increasing adverse birth outcomes. Therefore, for pregnant women with gestational diabetes, who require insulin therapy, IDet would be an ideal basal insulin being worthy of promotion in clinical settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7254127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72541272020-06-08 Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study ji, Jing He, Zhangya Yang, Zhao Mi, Yang Guo, Na Zhao, Hong Gao, Jiayi Ma, Zhengfeei Luo, Xiaoqin Han, Zhen BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin used in pregnant women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized study was conducted in diabetic pregnant women (n=240) (including 132 with pregestational diabetes and 108 with gestational diabetes). All patients were randomly divided into two groups: IDet group (n=120) treated with IDet plus short acting insulin Novolin-R before three meals (RRR–IDet plan), and NPH group treated with NPH plus Novolin-R before three meals (RRR–NPH plan). Patients were enrolled during 12–28 gestation weeks and followed up until delivery. RESULTS: Basal characteristics, such as age, enrollment gestational weeks, average HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were similar between two groups. After 1 week of treatment, the FPG of IDet group were significantly lower than NPH group (p<0.05) and the time required to reach the targeted blood glucose level was significantly shorter (p<0.001). After 3 months of treatment, the HbA1c level in the two groups was normalized but there was no significant difference in HbA1c level. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two therapeutic approaches; however, the incidence of hypoglycemia in IDet group was remarkably lower than that of NPH group (p<0.05). The adverse drug reactions were rare and similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of gestational diabetes, both RRR–IDet plan and RRR–NPH plan were reported to control blood glucose effectively. Compared with NPH, IDet could control blood glucose and reached the targets faster and more effectively, thus reducing the number of insulin injections and the incidence of hypoglycemia in pregnant women without increasing adverse birth outcomes. Therefore, for pregnant women with gestational diabetes, who require insulin therapy, IDet would be an ideal basal insulin being worthy of promotion in clinical settings. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7254127/ /pubmed/32265255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001155 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition
ji, Jing
He, Zhangya
Yang, Zhao
Mi, Yang
Guo, Na
Zhao, Hong
Gao, Jiayi
Ma, Zhengfeei
Luo, Xiaoqin
Han, Zhen
Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study
title Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study
title_full Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study
title_fullStr Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study
title_short Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study
title_sort comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study
topic Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7254127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32265255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001155
work_keys_str_mv AT jijing comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT hezhangya comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT yangzhao comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT miyang comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT guona comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT zhaohong comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT gaojiayi comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT mazhengfeei comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT luoxiaoqin comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT hanzhen comparingtheefficacyandsafetyofinsulindetemirversusneutralprotaminehagedorninsulinintreatmentofdiabetesduringpregnancyarandomizedcontrolledstudy