Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Jan 19:8:3.
doi: 10.1186/1475-2840-8-3.

Improved glycaemic control by switching from insulin NPH to insulin glargine: a retrospective observational study

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Improved glycaemic control by switching from insulin NPH to insulin glargine: a retrospective observational study

Peter Sharplin et al. Cardiovasc Diabetol. .

Abstract

Background: Insulin glargine (glargine) and insulin NPH (NPH) are two basal insulin treatments. This study investigated the effect on glycaemic control of switching from a NPH-based regimen to a glargine-based regimen in 701 patients with type 1 (n= 304) or type 2 (n= 397) diabetes, using unselected primary care data.

Methods: Data for this retrospective observational study were extracted from a UK primary care database (The Health Improvement Network). Patients were required to have at least 12 months of data before and after switching from NPH to glargine. The principal analysis was the change in HbA(1c) after 12 months treatment with glargine; secondary analyses included change in weight and total daily insulin dose. Inconsistent reporting of hypoglycemic episodes precludes reliable reporting of this outcome. Multivariate analyses were used to adjust for baseline characteristics and confounding variables.

Results: After adjustment, both diabetic cohorts showed statistically significant reductions in mean HbA(1c) 12 months after the switch, by 0.38% (p < 0.001) in type 1 patients and 0.31% (p < 0.001) in type 2 patients. Improvement in HbA1c was positively correlated with baseline HbA(1c); patients with baseline HbA(1c) > or = 8% had reductions of 0.57% (p < 0.001) and 0.47% (p < 0.001), respectively. There was no significant change in weight or total daily insulin dose while on glargine. The majority of patients received a basal-bolus regimen prior to and after the switch (mean 79.3% before and 77.2% after switch in type 1 patients, and 80.4% and 76.8%, respectively in type 2 patients, p > 0.05).

Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, switching from NPH to glargine provides the opportunity for improving glycaemic control in diabetes patients inadequately controlled by NPH.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean HbA1c 12 months before and after switching from NPH to glargine (A), mean change in HbA1c after switch (B), use of bolus insulin before and after switch (C) and total daily insulin dose before and after switch (D) (unadjusted data). The last measurement for NPH is at -3 months (indicated by vertical dotted line). During period -12 m to -3 m patients are taking NPH only. During 3 month switch time point (0 months) patients may be prescribed NPH or glargine. During period +3 m to +12 m patients are only prescribed glargine. Linearly interpolated data were used to graphically depict the change in each parameter. Linearly interpolated data affords a clearer graphical interpretation but may bias estimates of variance; as such error bars (95% confidence intervals for the means) are not reported. Total daily insulin dose was calculated according to the number of units prescribed divided by the number of days covered by the prescription.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. NEJM. 1993;329:977–986. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401. - DOI - PubMed
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352:837–853. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07019-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . (Clinical guideline 66) London: NICE; 2008. The management of type 2 diabetes (update)http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/CG66
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . (Clinical guideline 15) London: NICE; 2004. Diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes in children, young people and adults.http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=byID&o=10944
    1. IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force Global Guideline for type 2 Diabetes: recommendations for standard, comprehensive, and minimal care. Diabet Med. 2006;23:579–593. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01918.x. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms