Umpierrez Guillermo, Issa Maher, Vlajnic Aleksandra
Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Apr;22(4):751-9. doi: 10.1185/030079906X104786.
To compare the effect of add-on glimepiride or pioglitazone in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.
Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, forcedtitration study involving 203 adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (A1C 7.5-10%) on metformin monotherapy. Subjects were randomized to receive glimepiride or pioglitazone, titrated to the maximum dose for 26 weeks. Subjects were evaluated for A1C changes, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, C-peptide, and lipid levels. Safety outcomes and diabetes-related healthcare resource utilization were also evaluated.
Both treatment groups achieved similar and significant mean decreases from baseline to endpoint (week 26) in A1C (p = 0.0001) and FPG (p < 0.05). Glimepiride therapy, however, resulted in a more rapid decline in A1C levels at weeks 6, 12, and 20 vs. pioglitazone (p < 0.05). A mean A1C < or = 7% was reached faster in the glimepiride group (median, 80-90 days vs. 140-150 days [p = 0.024]). Total and LDL cholesterol were significantly higher with pioglitazone treatment than with glimepiride at endpoint (p < 0.05). Glimepiride treatment was associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and pioglitazone with higher rate of peripheral edema. Healthcare resource utilization was similar between groups, but total healthcare costs were significantly lower for glimepiride versus pioglitazone over the course of the study, driven largely by drug costs. The use of fasting C-peptide concentration > or = 0.27 nmol/L in the inclusion criteria was a potential limitation as it may have included those patients with an improved probability for glimepiride or pioglitazone response. In addition, a larger patient population would have provided a greater degree of data applicability.
In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, add-on glimepiride or pioglitazone results in similar overall improvements in glycemic control. Compared with pioglitazone, glimepiride is associated with faster glycemic control, lower total and LDL cholesterol levels and reduced short-term healthcare costs.
比较在接受二甲双胍单药治疗但控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者中加用格列美脲或吡格列酮的效果。
一项多中心、随机、平行组、开放标签、强制滴定研究,纳入203例接受二甲双胍单药治疗且2型糖尿病控制不佳(糖化血红蛋白[A1C] 7.5%-10%)的成年人。受试者被随机分配接受格列美脲或吡格列酮治疗,滴定至最大剂量并持续26周。评估受试者的A1C变化、空腹血糖(FPG)、胰岛素、C肽和血脂水平。还评估了安全性结果以及与糖尿病相关的医疗资源利用情况。
两个治疗组从基线到终点(第26周)的A1C(p = 0.0001)和FPG(p < 0.05)均实现了相似且显著的平均下降。然而,与吡格列酮相比,格列美脲治疗在第6、12和20周时A1C水平下降更快(p < 0.05)。格列美脲组达到平均A1C≤7%的速度更快(中位数,80 - 90天对140 - 150天 [p = 0.024])。在终点时,吡格列酮治疗的总胆固醇和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇显著高于格列美脲(p < 0.05)。格列美脲治疗与低血糖风险增加相关,吡格列酮与外周水肿发生率较高相关。两组之间的医疗资源利用情况相似,但在研究过程中,格列美脲的总医疗费用显著低于吡格列酮,这主要是由药物成本驱动的。纳入标准中使用空腹C肽浓度≥0.27 nmol/L是一个潜在局限性,因为这可能纳入了那些对格列美脲或吡格列酮反应可能性更高的患者。此外,更大的患者群体本可以提供更高程度的数据适用性。
在接受二甲双胍单药治疗但控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者中,加用格列美脲或吡格列酮在血糖控制方面总体改善相似。与吡格列酮相比,格列美脲与更快的血糖控制、更低的总胆固醇和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平以及更低的短期医疗费用相关。