Hormone research · 2008
Evaluation of the pituitary function with insulin tolerance (hypoglycaemia) testing: are there any differences using insulin lispro compared to regular insulin?
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yuen Kevin C J, Amin Rakesh, Cook Marie B, Rhoads Sharon A, Cook David M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: The insulin tolerance test (ITT) remains the gold standard for evaluating the pituitary function, but has potential risks when hypoglycaemia is induced. There are scarce data using short-acting insulin analogs for ITTs. This pilot study compares the effects of insulin lispro (LPI) with regular insulin (RGI) during an ITT.
METHODS: Patients with suspected hypopituitarism (n = 103) randomly received either LPI (n = 51) or RGI (n = 52).
RESULTS: All patients reported signs and symptoms when hypoglycaemia was induced. In the LPI group, hypoglycaemia occurred sooner (23.6 +/- 1.6 vs. 28.3 +/- 1.4 min, p < 0.05), and duration of hypoglycaemia (25.0 +/- 1.7 vs. 31.9 +/- 1.9 min, p < 0.05) and time for blood glucose levels to return to a 'safe' level (>3.3 mmol/l; 56.5 +/- 2.3 vs. 76.0 +/- 2.1 min, p < 0.001) were shorter as compared with the RGI group. No differences in peak growth hormone and cortisol levels were observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that despite inducing similar symptomatology, LPI exerted a quicker onset and a shorter duration of hypoglycaemia as compared with RGI. Thus, using LPI might reduce the potential risks associated with an ITT by shortening the hypoglycaemic phase of the test.
METHODS: Patients with suspected hypopituitarism (n = 103) randomly received either LPI (n = 51) or RGI (n = 52).
RESULTS: All patients reported signs and symptoms when hypoglycaemia was induced. In the LPI group, hypoglycaemia occurred sooner (23.6 +/- 1.6 vs. 28.3 +/- 1.4 min, p < 0.05), and duration of hypoglycaemia (25.0 +/- 1.7 vs. 31.9 +/- 1.9 min, p < 0.05) and time for blood glucose levels to return to a 'safe' level (>3.3 mmol/l; 56.5 +/- 2.3 vs. 76.0 +/- 2.1 min, p < 0.001) were shorter as compared with the RGI group. No differences in peak growth hormone and cortisol levels were observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that despite inducing similar symptomatology, LPI exerted a quicker onset and a shorter duration of hypoglycaemia as compared with RGI. Thus, using LPI might reduce the potential risks associated with an ITT by shortening the hypoglycaemic phase of the test.