Author
Listed:
- Fernanda O Laranjeira
- Keitty R C de Andrade
- Ana C M G Figueiredo
- Everton N Silva
- Mauricio G Pereira
Abstract
Background: The comparison between long acting insulin analogues (LAIA) and human insulin (NPH) has been investigated for decades, with many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews giving mixed results. This overlapping and contradictory evidence has increased uncertainty on coverage decisions at health systems level. Aim: To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and update existing reviews, preparing new meta-analysis to determine whether LAIA are effective for T1D patients compared to NPH. Methods: We identified systematic reviews of RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of LAIA glargine or detemir, compared to NPH insulin for T1D, assessing glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and hypoglycemia. Data sources included Pubmed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and hand-searching. The methodological quality of studies was independently assessed by two reviewers, using AMSTAR and Jadad scale. We found 11 eligible systematic reviews that contained a total of 25 relevant clinical trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted data. Results: We found evidence that LAIA are efficacious compared to NPH, with estimates showing a reduction in nocturnal hypoglycemia episodes (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57; 0.76) and A1C (95% CI 0.23; 0.12). No significance was found related to severe hypoglycemia (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.71; 1.24). Conclusion: This study design has allowed us to carry out the most comprehensive assessment of RCTs on this subject, filling a gap in diabetes research. Our paper addresses a question that is important not only for decision makers but also for clinicians.
Suggested Citation
Fernanda O Laranjeira & Keitty R C de Andrade & Ana C M G Figueiredo & Everton N Silva & Mauricio G Pereira, 2018.
"Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0194801
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194801
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.