摘要
目的比较甘精胰岛素联合瑞格列奈与门冬胰岛素30控制血糖的有效性和安全性。方法 51例T2DM患者进行动态血糖监测后随机分为两组:甘精胰岛素组(G组)和门冬胰岛素30组(A组)。12周后复查HbA1c和动态血糖监测。结果两组血糖均有所下降,G组HbA1c≤6.5%达标率[(35.7±20.6)%]高于A组[(28.0±13.2)%](P<0.05)。动态血糖监测:治疗后G、A两组日间平均血糖绝对差[(1.67±0.13)vs(2.89±0.20)mmol/L](P<0.05),日内平均血糖波动幅度[(4.13±0.21)vs(6.26±0.30)mmol/L](P<0.05)。结论两组均可有效控制血糖,G组HbA1c≤6.5%达标率更高,血糖波动性更小。
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety between treatment with insulin glargine and insulin aspart 30 in combination with repaglinide in the plasma glucose control. Methods Fifty-one T2DM patients were randomized into 2 groups after continuous monitoring their plasma glucose with CGMS for 72 hours： the insulin glargine group （G group） and insul.in aspart 30 group （A group）. Twelve weeks later, reviewing their HbA1 c and monitoring their plasma glucose with CGMS were performed again for observing the effect of treatment. Results The plasma glucose of both groups was decreased. The rate of HbAle ≤ 6. 5% in the G group [（35.7±20. 6）%] was higher than in the A group [（28.0± 13.2） %], （P〈0.05）. In monitoring with CGMS after treatment, the absolute means of daily differences （MODD） of the 2 groups were [（1. 67±0. 13） vs （2.89±0.20）mmol/L] （P〈0. 05）, and the mean amplitude of glucose excursions （MAGE） in the daytime of the 2 groups were [（4.13±0.21） vs （6.26± 0.30）mmol/L] （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Although the plasma glucose of the 2 groups can be effectively controlled, the rate of HbAae ≤ 6.5% in the G group is higher than that in the A group, and the glucose fluctuation is less in the G group than in the A group.
出处
《中国糖尿病杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2012年第5期354-356,共3页
Chinese Journal of Diabetes
关键词
糖尿病
2型
甘精胰岛素
门冬胰岛素30
动态血糖监测
Diabetes mellitus, type 2
Insulin glargine
Insulin aspart 30
Continuous glucose monitoring system （CGMS）
