Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Among the systematic reviews that assessed outcomes similar way to this overview, Vardi and collaborators [ 30 ], in a Cochrane review, yielded comparable results to our overview concerning hypoglycemia. Results showed the reduction was not statistically significant in general hypoglycemia (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.8; 1.08) (30).…”

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Among the systematic reviews that assessed outcomes similar way to this overview, Vardi and collaborators [ 30 ], in a Cochrane review, yielded comparable results to our overview concerning hypoglycemia. Results showed the reduction was not statistically significant in general hypoglycemia (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.8; 1.08) (30).…”

Insulin Glargine in a Brazilian State: Should the Government Disinvest? An Assessment Based on a Systematic Review

“…At the same time, the Consequently the objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in patients with Type I diabetes based on a full systematic review of currently available evidence. This builds on previous reviews[16,18,20,22,23,34]. SUS) in the Minas Gerais State in Brazil.…”

“…This led to price reductions of long-acting insulins soon after the initial activities to help maintain reimbursement for these drugs, which have persisted [17]. The findings are similar to those from the Cochrane Review of long-acting insulins, which also found longacting insulins only have a minor clinical benefit, if at all, versus NPH insulins in patients with Type I or II diabetes [18,19]. NICE in the UK in 2002 recommended NPH insulins as first line treatment in patients with Type II diabetes, with long-acting insulins only recommended in specific circumstances, with glargine a potential option for patients with Type I diabetes (14,20).…”

The outcome of care in people with type 1 diabetes after switching to insulin glargine-based regimens in a real-life setting: a long-term observational study

“…Another consequence of intensive insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes was significant weight gain observed in the DCCT . In the meta‐analyses of RCTs, increase in body weight was lower in patients using glargine in comparison with NPH insulin . Weight gain was observed also in almost all other studies.…”

“…As the DCCT demonstrated, the main side effects of intensive insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes are increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia and weight gain . The risk of severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the RCTs was significantly lower in patients using long‐acting insulin analogues in comparison with NPH insulin . Data from observational studies are divergent.…”

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Among the systematic reviews that assessed outcomes similar way to this overview, Vardi and collaborators [ 30 ], in a Cochrane review, yielded comparable results to our overview concerning hypoglycemia. Results showed the reduction was not statistically significant in general hypoglycemia (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.8; 1.08) (30).…”

Insulin Glargine in a Brazilian State: Should the Government Disinvest? An Assessment Based on a Systematic Review

“…At the same time, the Consequently the objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in patients with Type I diabetes based on a full systematic review of currently available evidence. This builds on previous reviews[16,18,20,22,23,34]. SUS) in the Minas Gerais State in Brazil.…”

“…This led to price reductions of long-acting insulins soon after the initial activities to help maintain reimbursement for these drugs, which have persisted [17]. The findings are similar to those from the Cochrane Review of long-acting insulins, which also found longacting insulins only have a minor clinical benefit, if at all, versus NPH insulins in patients with Type I or II diabetes [18,19]. NICE in the UK in 2002 recommended NPH insulins as first line treatment in patients with Type II diabetes, with long-acting insulins only recommended in specific circumstances, with glargine a potential option for patients with Type I diabetes (14,20).…”

The outcome of care in people with type 1 diabetes after switching to insulin glargine-based regimens in a real-life setting: a long-term observational study

“…Another consequence of intensive insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes was significant weight gain observed in the DCCT . In the meta‐analyses of RCTs, increase in body weight was lower in patients using glargine in comparison with NPH insulin . Weight gain was observed also in almost all other studies.…”

“…As the DCCT demonstrated, the main side effects of intensive insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes are increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia and weight gain . The risk of severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the RCTs was significantly lower in patients using long‐acting insulin analogues in comparison with NPH insulin . Data from observational studies are divergent.…”

Long-acting insulin analogues for type 1 diabetes: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Among the systematic reviews that assessed outcomes similar way to this overview, Vardi and collaborators [ 30 ], in a Cochrane review, yielded comparable results to our overview concerning hypoglycemia. Results showed the reduction was not statistically significant in general hypoglycemia (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.8; 1.08) (30).…”

Insulin Glargine in a Brazilian State: Should the Government Disinvest? An Assessment Based on a Systematic Review

“…At the same time, the Consequently the objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in patients with Type I diabetes based on a full systematic review of currently available evidence. This builds on previous reviews[16,18,20,22,23,34]. SUS) in the Minas Gerais State in Brazil.…”

“…This led to price reductions of long-acting insulins soon after the initial activities to help maintain reimbursement for these drugs, which have persisted [17]. The findings are similar to those from the Cochrane Review of long-acting insulins, which also found longacting insulins only have a minor clinical benefit, if at all, versus NPH insulins in patients with Type I or II diabetes [18,19]. NICE in the UK in 2002 recommended NPH insulins as first line treatment in patients with Type II diabetes, with long-acting insulins only recommended in specific circumstances, with glargine a potential option for patients with Type I diabetes (14,20).…”

The outcome of care in people with type 1 diabetes after switching to insulin glargine-based regimens in a real-life setting: a long-term observational study

“…Another consequence of intensive insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes was significant weight gain observed in the DCCT . In the meta‐analyses of RCTs, increase in body weight was lower in patients using glargine in comparison with NPH insulin . Weight gain was observed also in almost all other studies.…”

“…As the DCCT demonstrated, the main side effects of intensive insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes are increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia and weight gain . The risk of severe and nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the RCTs was significantly lower in patients using long‐acting insulin analogues in comparison with NPH insulin . Data from observational studies are divergent.…”