Suppr超能文献

德谷胰岛素利拉鲁肽注射液对比甘精胰岛素 U100 作为初始胰岛素治疗用于 2 型糖尿病的疗效和安全性(DUAL VIII):一项多中心、开放标签、3b 期、随机对照临床试验。

Durability of insulin degludec plus liraglutide versus insulin glargine U100 as initial injectable therapy in type 2 diabetes (DUAL VIII): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, randomised controlled trial.

机构信息

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD, USA.

Jalisco Institute of Research in Diabetes and Obesity SC, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

出版信息

Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Aug;7(8):596-605. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30184-6. Epub 2019 Jun 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Durability of glycaemic control might reduce disease burden and improve long-term outcomes. DUAL VIII investigated the durability of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes with the use of a visit schedule that mirrored routine clinical practice.

METHODS

In this 104-week international, multicentre, open-label, phase 3b randomised controlled trial, insulin-naive patients aged 18 years and older, with HbA between 7·0-11·0% (53-97 mmol/mol), BMI of 20 kg/m or higher, on stable doses of oral antidiabetic drugs, were recruited from outpatient clinics. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1, with a simple sequential allocation randomisation schedule (block size of four), to IDegLira or IGlar U100, each treatment being an add-on to existing therapy. The internal safety committee, the independent external committee, and the personnel involved in defining the analysis sets were masked until the database was released for statistical analysis. Patients and all other investigators were not masked. In the IDegLira group, patients were given degludec 100 units/mL plus liraglutide 3·6 mg/mL in a 3 mL prefilled PDS290 pen for subcutaneous injection; in the IGlar U100 group, patients were given IGlar U100 solution, in a 3 mL prefilled Solostar pen for subcutaneous injection. Both treatments were given once daily at any time of day and it was recommended that the time of day remained the same throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was time from randomisation to need for treatment intensification (HbA ≥7·0% [53 mmol/mol] at two consecutive visits, including week 26). Once patients met this criterion, the trial product was permanently discontinued and patients were not withdrawn from trial but rather remained on follow-up for the entire treatment and follow-up period. The primary analysis was in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02501161.

FINDINGS

From Jan 8, 2016, to Oct 3, 2018, 1345 patients were screened, of which 1012 (75·2%) were eligible and randomly assigned to either IDegLira (n=506) or IGlar U100 (n=506). 484 (96%) of 506 in the IDegLira group and 481 (95%) of 506 in the IGlar U100 group completed the trial. Baseline characteristics were similar and representative of patients eligible for basal insulin intensification (overall mean diabetes duration 10 years; HbA 8·5% [69 mmol/mol]; fasting plasma glucose 10 mmol/L). Patients in the IDegLira group had significantly longer time until intensification was needed than those in the IGlar U100 group (median >2 years vs about 1 year). Fewer patients in the IDegLira group needed treatment intensification over 104 weeks than those in the IGlar U100 group (189 [37%] of 506 vs 335 [66%] of 506). The preplanned sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint were in agreement with the primary analysis (hazard ratio 0·45 [95% CI 0·38-0·54]) in the proportional hazards regression model and the generalised log-rank test was also in favour of IDegLira (p<0·0001). No new or unexpected safety and tolerability issues were identified and there were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic drugs, initial injectable therapy with IDegLira resulted in fewer patients reaching the treatment intensification criterion during 104 weeks versus IGlar U100, with longer durability of the treatment effect with IDegLira.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

摘要

背景

血糖控制的持久性可能会降低疾病负担并改善长期结局。DUAL VIII 研究旨在考察德谷胰岛素利拉鲁肽注射液(IDegLira)与甘精胰岛素 U100 对比,在接受过口服降糖药物治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者中,模拟常规临床实践的访视计划下,二者的持久性。

方法

这是一项国际性、多中心、开放标签、3b 期随机对照试验,纳入年龄 18 岁及以上、糖化血红蛋白(HbA)在 7.0%-11.0%(53-97mmol/mol)之间、体质量指数(BMI)≥20kg/m²且正在接受稳定剂量的口服降糖药物治疗的胰岛素初治患者。患者被随机分配(1:1)接受 IDegLira 或甘精胰岛素 U100 治疗,两种治疗均为原有治疗方案的附加治疗。内部安全委员会、独立外部委员会以及负责定义分析集的人员在数据库发布进行统计分析前均处于盲态。患者和所有其他研究者均未处于盲态。IDegLira 组患者接受德谷胰岛素 100U/mL 联合利拉鲁肽 3.6mg/mL 预填充 PDS290 笔皮下注射;甘精胰岛素 U100 组患者接受甘精胰岛素 U100 溶液,预填充 Solostar 笔皮下注射。两种治疗均每日一次,任何时间给药,建议整个试验期间时间保持不变。主要终点为自随机化至需要治疗强化(两次连续访视时 HbA≥7.0%[53mmol/mol],包括第 26 周)的时间。一旦患者达到这一标准,试验产品将永久停用,且患者不会退出试验,而是继续接受整个治疗和随访期的随访。主要分析采用意向治疗人群。本研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 登记,编号为 NCT02501161。

结果

从 2016 年 1 月 8 日至 2018 年 10 月 3 日,共有 1345 名患者接受了筛选,其中 1012 名(75.2%)符合条件并被随机分配至 IDegLira 组(n=506)或甘精胰岛素 U100 组(n=506)。IDegLira 组有 484 名(96%)和甘精胰岛素 U100 组有 481 名(95%)患者完成了试验。两组的基线特征相似,具有接受基础胰岛素强化治疗的代表性(总体平均糖尿病病程 10 年;HbA 8.5%[69mmol/mol];空腹血糖 10mmol/L)。IDegLira 组患者需要强化治疗的时间明显长于甘精胰岛素 U100 组(中位数>2 年 vs 约 1 年)。IDegLira 组在 104 周时需要治疗强化的患者少于甘精胰岛素 U100 组(189 名[37%]vs 335 名[66%])。主要终点的预先计划的敏感性分析与主要分析一致(风险比 0.45[95%CI 0.38-0.54]),在比例风险回归模型和广义对数秩检验中也有利于 IDegLira(p<0.0001)。未发现新的或意外的安全性和耐受性问题,也无与治疗相关的死亡。

解释

在接受口服降糖药物治疗的 2 型糖尿病患者中,与甘精胰岛素 U100 相比,初始接受 IDegLira 治疗可使更多患者在 104 周时未达到治疗强化标准,且 IDegLira 的治疗效果持久性更长。

资金来源

诺和诺德。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验