首页> 外文期刊>Diabetes therapy >Testing the Therapeutic Equivalence of Alogliptin, Linagliptin, Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin or Vildagliptin as Monotherapy or in Combination with Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
【24h】

Testing the Therapeutic Equivalence of Alogliptin, Linagliptin, Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin or Vildagliptin as Monotherapy or in Combination with Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

机译:测试阿格列汀,利那列汀,沙格列汀,西他列汀或维格列汀在2型糖尿病患者中的单一疗法或与二甲双胍联合治疗的等效性

获取原文
       

摘要

Background In studying the therapeutic evidence of innovative drug treatments, increasing attention is being devoted to differentiating between results that indicate no significant differences among the treatments under examination (“no proof of difference”) and results that demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence among the treatments (“proof of no difference”). Aim Our analysis was aimed at evaluating the degree of therapeutic equivalence for dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors given in type 2 diabetes as monotherapy or in combination with metformin. Methods Equivalence was determined by developing a standard Forest plot that incorporated the information on margins previously reported in randomized trials on these agents. The end point was HbA1c change from baseline; the equivalence margin was set at ±0.25% change in HbA1c. The clinical material was obtained from a systematic review on this topic. Results Given as monotherapy, linagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin (but not saxagliptin) met the equivalence criterion when compared with one another. Given in combination with metformin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin showed an equivalent effect whereas alogliptin did not satisfy the equivalence criterion. Conclusions Considering the most recent therapeutic guidelines, our results are of interest particularly as regards the information on DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin. Four of the five DPP-4 inhibitors under examination clearly showed to have the same effectiveness; the fifth agent—alogliptin—failed to meet the equivalence criterion, but only because its superiority could not be excluded.
机译:背景技术在研究创新药物疗法的治疗证据时,越来越多的注意力集中在区分表示接受检查的疗法之间无显着差异的结果(“无差异证据”)和表明疗法之间的治疗等效性的结果(“无差异的证明”)。目的我们的分析旨在评估在2型糖尿病中作为单一疗法或与二甲双胍联用给予的二肽基肽酶-4(DPP-4)抑制剂的治疗等效程度。方法通过开发标准森林图确定等效性,该标准森林图结合了先前在这些药物随机试验中报告的利润率信息。终点是HbA 1c 与基线相比的变化; HbA 1c 的等效裕度设置为±0.25%。临床材料来自对该主题的系统评价。结果作为单药治疗,利格列汀,西他列汀和维达列汀(但非沙格列汀)相互比较时达到了等效标准。与二甲双胍合用时,利拉列汀,沙格列汀,西他列汀和维达列汀显示等效作用,而阿格列汀不满足等效标准。结论考虑到最新的治疗指南,我们的研究结果尤其令人感兴趣,特别是关于DPP-4抑制剂与二甲双胍联用的信息。接受检查的五种DPP-4抑制剂中有四种明显显示出相同的效果;第五种药物-阿格列汀-未能达到等效标准,但这仅是因为无法排除其优越性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号