...
首页> 外文期刊>Diabetes, obesity & metabolism >Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: A prospective randomized open-label trial
【24h】

Comparison of insulin lispro protamine suspension versus insulin glargine once daily added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications and exenatide in type 2 diabetes: A prospective randomized open-label trial

机译:赖脯胰岛素鱼精蛋白悬浮液与甘精胰岛素每日一次联合口服降糖药和艾塞那肽治疗2型糖尿病的比较:一项前瞻性随机开放标签试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Aims: To compare efficacy and safety of two, once-daily basal insulin formulations [insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS) vs. insulin glargine (glargine)] added to oral antihyperglycaemic medications (OAMs) and exenatide BID in suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. Methods: This 24-week, open-label, multicentre trial randomized patients to bedtime ILPS (n=171) or glargine (n=168). Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was assessed by comparing the upper limit of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for baseline HbA1c) with non-inferiority margin 0.4%. Results: Non-inferiority of ILPS versus glargine was demonstrated: least-squares mean between-treatment difference (ILPS minus glargine) (95% CI) was 0.22% (0.06, 0.38). Mean HbA1c reduction was less for ILPS- versus glargine-treated patients (-1.16±0.84 vs. -1.40±0.97%, p=0.008). Endpoint HbA1c<7.0% was achieved by 53.7% (ILPS) and 61.7% (glargine) (p=NS). Overall hypoglycaemia rates (p=NS) and severe hypoglycaemia incidence (p=NS) were similar. Nocturnal hypoglycaemia rate was higher in patients treated with ILPS versus glargine (p=0.004). Weight gain was similar between groups (ILPS: 0.27±3.38kg; glargine: 0.66±3.93kg, p=NS). Endpoint total insulin doses were lower in patients treated with ILPS versus glargine (0.30±0.17 vs. 0.37±0.17IU/kg/day, p<0.001). Conclusions: ILPS was non-inferior to glargine for HbA1c change over 24weeks, but was associated with less HbA1c reduction and more nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treat-to-target basal insulin therapy improves glycaemic control and is associated with minimal weight gain when added to OAMs and exenatide BID for suboptimally controlled T2D.
机译:目的:为了比较两种每日一次的基础胰岛素制剂[赖脯胰岛素鱼精蛋白悬浮液(ILPS)与甘精胰岛素(甘精胰岛素)]和口服抗高血糖药物(OAM)和艾塞那肽BID在亚最佳控制的2型糖尿病中的疗效和安全性( T2D)患者。方法:这项为期24周的开放标签,多中心试验将患者随机分为就寝时间ILPS(n = 171)或甘精胰岛素(n = 168)。通过比较95%置信区间(CIs)从基线到第24周血红蛋白A1c(HbA1c)的上限(针对基线HbA1c进行了调整)与非劣效性边际0.4%来评估ILPS与甘精氨酸的非劣效性。结果:证实了ILPS与甘精胰岛素的非劣效性:治疗之间的最小二乘均方差(ILPS减去甘精胰岛素)(95%CI)为0.22%(0.06,0.38)。与接受甘精氨酸治疗的患者相比,ILPS治疗组患者的平均HbA1c降低幅度较小(-1.16±0.84对-1.40±0.97%,p = 0.008)。终点HbA1c <7.0%达到了53.7%(ILPS)和61.7%(甘草碱)(p = NS)。总体低血糖发生率(p = NS)和严重低血糖发生率(p = NS)相似。与甘精胰岛素相比,接受ILPS治疗的患者夜间低血糖发生率更高(p = 0.004)。两组之间体重增加相似(ILPS:0.27±3.38kg;甘精胰岛素:0.66±3.93kg,p = NS)。与甘精胰岛素相比,接受ILPS治疗的患者终点总胰岛素剂量更低(0.30±0.17 vs. 0.37±0.17IU / kg / day,p <0.001)。结论:在24周内,ILPS在HbA1c变化方面不逊于精氨酸,但与HbA1c减少较少和夜间低血糖症发生率更高有关。以目标为基础的基础胰岛素治疗可改善血糖控制,并在添加到OAM和艾塞那肽BID中用于亚最佳控制的T2D时,体重增加最小。

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