Suppr超能文献

一项开放、随机、平行组研究,旨在比较吸入型人胰岛素(依克那肽)与格列本脲作为辅助治疗对二甲双胍治疗效果不佳的2型糖尿病患者的疗效和安全性。

An open, randomized, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy and safety profile of inhaled human insulin (Exubera) with glibenclamide as adjunctive therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on metformin.

作者信息

Barnett Anthony H, Dreyer Manfred, Lange Peter, Serdarevic-Pehar Marjana

机构信息

University of Birmingham and Heart of England National Health Service Foundation Trust (Teaching), UK.

出版信息

Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1818-25. doi: 10.2337/dc05-1880.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety profile of adding inhaled human insulin (INH) (Exubera) or glibenclamide to metformin monotherapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted an open-label, parallel, 24-week multicenter trial. Patients uncontrolled on metformin were randomized to adjunctive INH (n = 243) or glibenclamide (n = 233). Before randomization, patients were divided into two HbA(1c) (A1C) arms: > or =8 to < or =9.5% (moderately high) and >9.5 to < or =12% (very high). The primary efficacy end point was A1C change from baseline.

RESULTS

Mean adjusted A1C changes from baseline were -2.03 and -1.88% in the INH and glibenclamide groups, respectively; between-treatment difference -0.17% (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01; P = 0.058), consistent with the noninferiority criterion. In the A1C >9.5% arm, inhaled insulin demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in A1C than glibenclamide, between-treatment difference -0.37% (-0.62 to -0.12; P = 0.004). In the A1C < or =9.5% arm, between-treatment difference was 0.04% (-0.19 to 0.27; P = 0.733). Hypoglycemia (events per subject-month) was greater with INH (0.18) than glibenclamide (0.08), risk ratio 2.24 (1.58-3.16), but there were no associated discontinuations. Other adverse events, except increased cough in the INH group, were similar. At week 24, changes from baseline in pulmonary function parameters were small. Insulin antibody binding increased more with INH but did not have any associated clinical manifestations.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on metformin, adding INH or glibenclamide was similarly effective in improving glycemic control, and both were well tolerated. A predefined subgroup with very high A1C (>9.5%) was more effectively treated with the addition of INH.

摘要

目的

比较在二甲双胍单药治疗控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者中,加用吸入型人胰岛素(INH)(优泌乐)或格列本脲的疗效和安全性。

研究设计与方法

我们进行了一项开放标签、平行、为期24周的多中心试验。二甲双胍治疗效果不佳的患者被随机分为加用INH组(n = 243)或格列本脲组(n = 233)。在随机分组前,患者被分为两个糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)(A1C)组:≥8%至≤9.5%(中度升高)和>9.5%至≤12%(非常高)。主要疗效终点是A1C相对于基线的变化。

结果

INH组和格列本脲组从基线开始的平均校正A1C变化分别为-2.03%和-1.88%;组间差异为-0.17%(95%置信区间-0.34至0.01;P = 0.058),符合非劣效性标准。在A1C>9.5%组中,吸入胰岛素使A1C降低的幅度显著大于格列本脲,组间差异为-0.37%(-0.62至-0.12;P = 0.004)。在A1C≤9.5%组中,组间差异为0.04%(-0.19至0.27;P = 0.733)。INH组低血糖(每受试者月事件数)高于格列本脲组(0.18比0.08),风险比为2.24(1.58 - 3.16),但未导致停药。除INH组咳嗽增加外,其他不良事件相似。在第24周时,肺功能参数相对于基线的变化较小。INH组胰岛素抗体结合增加更多,但未出现相关临床表现。

结论

在二甲双胍治疗控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者中,加用INH或格列本脲在改善血糖控制方面同样有效,且耐受性良好。对于预先定义的A1C非常高(>9.5%)的亚组,加用INH治疗效果更佳。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验