PROSPECTIVE STUDY TO COMPARE INSULIN AND INSULIN ANALOGS IN TYPE II DIABETIC PATIENTS
Objective: To compare the safety and quality of life of insulin and insulin analogues in Type II Diabetic patients.
Methods: 100 patients who are diagnosed with type â€“ II diabetes milletus are taken.In these 50 patients are of insulin analogues and 50 patients are of conventional insulin The safety was based on number of hypoglycemic events.Data was collected by using the EQ-5D questionnaire and EQ Visual Analogue scale (EQ-VAS) to assess the quality of life from the patient.
Result:The percentage of the patients who had hypoglycemic events in conventional insulin group is 54% (n=27) and insulin analogues group is 20% (n=10). Mean score points of QOL obtained by conventional insulin patients is 75.9 and by insulin analogues patients is 93.75
Conclusion: Insulin analogues group has low risk of hypoglycaemia when compared with the conventional insulin.The patient group who are in No problem category are found to have better QOL. The safety and QOL statistical differences constitute less likely among insulin and insulin analogues. The use of insulin analogues will continue to advance our efforts at improving diabetes care and treated related adverse outcomes can be reduced.
2. De Fronzo RA. From the triumvirate to the omnious octet: A new paradigm for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes 2009;58:773-87.
3. Nyenwe EA, Jerkins TW, Umpierrez GE, Kitabchi AE. Management of type 2 diabetes: Evolving strategies for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Metabolism 2011;60(1):1-23.
4. Singh SR, Ahmad F, Lal A, Yu C, Bai Z, Bennett H. Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis. CMAJ 2009;180(4):385-97.
5. Rolla A. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic advantages of insulin analogues and premixed insulin analogues over human insulins: Impact on efficacy and safety. Am J Med 2008;121 6 Suppl: S9-19.
6. Zinman B. Newer insulin analogs: Advances in basal insulin replacement. Diabetes Obes Metab 2013;15 Suppl 1:6-10.
7. Shah S, Zilov A, Malek R, Soewondo P, Bech O, Litwak L. Improvements in quality of life associated with insulin analogue therapies in people with type 2 diabetes: Results from the A1chieve observational study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011;94(3):364-70.
8. Beverley B, Eschwege E. The diagnosis and classification of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance. In: Pickup JC, Williams G, editor. Textbook of Diabetes and Impaired Glucose Tolerance. 3rd ed., Ch. 2. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2003. p. 2.1-2.10.
9. Dipiro JT. Pharmacotherapy Handbook. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. p. 210-1, 649, 651-3.
10. Khardori R. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Differential Diagnoses Medscape; 2014.
11. Gomez-Perez FJ, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Almeda-Valdes P, Cuevas-Ramos D, Lerman Garber I, Rull JA. HbA1c for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in a developing country. A position article. Arch Med Res 2010;41(4):302-8.
12. Nicholas AB. Davidson Principles and Practice of Medicine. 22nd ed. Ch. 21. UK: Elsevier Health; 2014. p. 801.
13. Tirupathi KD. Classification of Pharmacology. 7th ed. New Delhi: Jaypee; 2006.
14. Indian Diabetes Federation. Available from: http://www.idf.org.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.