Cargando…
Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy/safety of dulaglutide once‐weekly monotherapy versus glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post‐hoc analysis of a Chinese randomized, double‐blind, non‐inferiority, phase III study. Patients (n = 572) wi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6944837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31102326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13075 |
_version_ | 1783485083592687616 |
---|---|
author | Shi, Li Xin Liu, Xiao Min Shi, Yong Quan Li, Quan Min Ma, Jian Hua Li, Yan Bing Du, Li Ying Wang, Feng Chen, Lu Lu |
author_facet | Shi, Li Xin Liu, Xiao Min Shi, Yong Quan Li, Quan Min Ma, Jian Hua Li, Yan Bing Du, Li Ying Wang, Feng Chen, Lu Lu |
author_sort | Shi, Li Xin |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy/safety of dulaglutide once‐weekly monotherapy versus glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post‐hoc analysis of a Chinese randomized, double‐blind, non‐inferiority, phase III study. Patients (n = 572) with inadequate glycemic control received dulaglutide 1.5 mg (n = 189) or 0.75 mg (n = 194) once‐weekly or glimepiride (1–3 mg/day; n = 189) for 26 weeks. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the non‐inferiority of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus glimepiride by the change from baseline to week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (non‐inferiority margin 0.4%). RESULTS: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg were non‐inferior (P < 0.001) and superior (P ≤ 0.002) versus glimepiride for the change in glycated hemoglobin from baseline to week 26. The least‐squares mean differences (95% confidence interval) versus glimepiride were dulaglutide 1.5 mg, −0.53% (−0.74, −0.32) and dulaglutide 0.75 mg, −0.32% (−0.53, −0.12). Significantly more patients attained glycated hemoglobin <7.0% at week 26 in the dulaglutide 1.5 mg (71.7%) versus the glimepiride (57.5%; P = 0.005) group. The decrease from baseline to week 26 in fasting blood glucose was significantly more pronounced in both the dulaglutide groups versus the glimepiride group (P < 0.01). The overall incidence and rate of hypoglycemia were lower in both of the dulaglutide groups versus the glimepiride group. At week 26, bodyweight had increased from baseline in the glimepiride group and decreased from baseline in both dulaglutide groups. The most frequent gastrointestinal drug‐related adverse events with dulaglutide were diarrhea, abdominal distension, nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support once‐weekly dulaglutide monotherapy as a treatment for Chinese patients with early stage type 2 diabetes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6944837 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69448372020-01-09 Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study Shi, Li Xin Liu, Xiao Min Shi, Yong Quan Li, Quan Min Ma, Jian Hua Li, Yan Bing Du, Li Ying Wang, Feng Chen, Lu Lu J Diabetes Investig Articles AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To investigate the efficacy/safety of dulaglutide once‐weekly monotherapy versus glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post‐hoc analysis of a Chinese randomized, double‐blind, non‐inferiority, phase III study. Patients (n = 572) with inadequate glycemic control received dulaglutide 1.5 mg (n = 189) or 0.75 mg (n = 194) once‐weekly or glimepiride (1–3 mg/day; n = 189) for 26 weeks. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the non‐inferiority of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus glimepiride by the change from baseline to week 26 in glycated hemoglobin (non‐inferiority margin 0.4%). RESULTS: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg were non‐inferior (P < 0.001) and superior (P ≤ 0.002) versus glimepiride for the change in glycated hemoglobin from baseline to week 26. The least‐squares mean differences (95% confidence interval) versus glimepiride were dulaglutide 1.5 mg, −0.53% (−0.74, −0.32) and dulaglutide 0.75 mg, −0.32% (−0.53, −0.12). Significantly more patients attained glycated hemoglobin <7.0% at week 26 in the dulaglutide 1.5 mg (71.7%) versus the glimepiride (57.5%; P = 0.005) group. The decrease from baseline to week 26 in fasting blood glucose was significantly more pronounced in both the dulaglutide groups versus the glimepiride group (P < 0.01). The overall incidence and rate of hypoglycemia were lower in both of the dulaglutide groups versus the glimepiride group. At week 26, bodyweight had increased from baseline in the glimepiride group and decreased from baseline in both dulaglutide groups. The most frequent gastrointestinal drug‐related adverse events with dulaglutide were diarrhea, abdominal distension, nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support once‐weekly dulaglutide monotherapy as a treatment for Chinese patients with early stage type 2 diabetes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-06-13 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6944837/ /pubmed/31102326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13075 Text en 2019 Eli Lilly and Company. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Articles Shi, Li Xin Liu, Xiao Min Shi, Yong Quan Li, Quan Min Ma, Jian Hua Li, Yan Bing Du, Li Ying Wang, Feng Chen, Lu Lu Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study |
title | Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study |
title_full | Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study |
title_fullStr | Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study |
title_short | Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase III study |
title_sort | efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: post‐hoc analyses of a randomized, double‐blind, phase iii study |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6944837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31102326 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13075 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shilixin efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT liuxiaomin efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT shiyongquan efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT liquanmin efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT majianhua efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT liyanbing efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT duliying efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT wangfeng efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy AT chenlulu efficacyandsafetyofdulaglutidemonotherapycomparedwithglimepirideinchinesepatientswithtype2diabetesposthocanalysesofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiistudy |