Onishi Yukiko, Ishii Hitoshi, Oura Tomonori, Takeuchi Masakazu
The Institute for Adult Diseases, Asahi Life Foundation, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Diabetology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Diabetes Ther. 2020 Mar;11(3):735-745. doi: 10.1007/s13300-020-00765-6. Epub 2020 Jan 29.
In East Asian patients, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized primarily by β-cell dysfunction, with lower insulin secretion than in Caucasian individuals. Therefore, bolus insulin and premixed insulin containing a bolus insulin component are important therapeutic tools in Japan, in addition to basal insulin. This subgroup analysis is stratified by insulin regimen and uses data from a phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind and subsequent open-label study in Japan to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide combined with various insulin therapies.
This multicenter study enrolled Japanese patients with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control [glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 7.5% to ≤ 10.5%] on insulin therapy [basal (B), premixed (PM), or basal bolus (BB)] in combination with or without one or two oral antidiabetic agents. Randomized participants received once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg (n = 120) or placebo (n = 39) during a 16-week double-blind treatment period, and dulaglutide during a 36-week open-label extension. In this subgroup analysis, efficacy measures were changes from baseline in HbA1c, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles, and body weight. Safety measures were incidence of adverse events and hypoglycemia during the first 16 weeks.
At week 16, least squares mean differences (95% CI) regarding changes from baseline in HbA1c for each insulin regimen versus placebo were: B: - 1.62% (- 1.96, - 1.28), PM: - 1.78% (- 2.25, - 1.30), and BB: - 1.15% (- 1.54, - 0.77); p < 0.001 dulaglutide vs. placebo for each subgroup. No significant differences in body weight changes were observed between dulaglutide and placebo for any insulin regimen. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most commonly observed adverse events in dulaglutide-treated patients. Hypoglycemia incidence rates were: B: dulaglutide 38.5% vs. placebo 23.5%; PM: dulaglutide 38.5% vs. placebo 44.4%; BB: dulaglutide 50.0% vs. placebo 30.8%.
Overall, dulaglutide was generally well tolerated and improved glycemic control significantly versus placebo, regardless of insulin regimen.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02750410.
在东亚患者中,2型糖尿病(T2DM)主要以β细胞功能障碍为特征,胰岛素分泌低于白种人个体。因此,除基础胰岛素外,推注胰岛素和含有推注胰岛素成分的预混胰岛素是日本重要的治疗手段。该亚组分析按胰岛素治疗方案分层,并使用来自日本一项4期、随机、安慰剂对照、双盲及随后开放标签研究的数据,以评估每周一次度拉糖肽联合各种胰岛素疗法的疗效和安全性。
这项多中心研究纳入了接受胰岛素治疗[基础胰岛素(B)、预混胰岛素(PM)或基础-餐时胰岛素(BB)]且血糖控制不佳[糖化血红蛋白A1c(HbA1c)≥7.5%至≤10.5%]的日本T2DM患者,这些患者联合使用或未使用一种或两种口服抗糖尿病药物。随机分组的参与者在16周双盲治疗期接受每周一次的度拉糖肽0.75mg(n = 120)或安慰剂(n = 39),并在36周开放标签延长期接受度拉糖肽治疗。在该亚组分析中,疗效指标为HbA1c、7点自我监测血糖谱和体重相对于基线的变化。安全性指标为前16周不良事件和低血糖的发生率。
在第16周时,各胰岛素治疗方案相对于安慰剂的HbA1c相对于基线变化的最小二乘均值差异(95%CI)为:B:-1.62%(-1.96,-1.28),PM:-1.78%(-2.25,-1.30),BB:-1.15%(-1.54,-0.77);各亚组度拉糖肽对比安慰剂,p < 0.001。对于任何胰岛素治疗方案,度拉糖肽和安慰剂之间在体重变化方面未观察到显著差异。胃肠道症状是接受度拉糖肽治疗患者中最常观察到的不良事件。低血糖发生率为:B:度拉糖肽38.5%对比安慰剂23.5%;PM:度拉糖肽38.5%对比安慰剂44.4%;BB:度拉糖肽50.0%对比安慰剂30.8%。
总体而言,无论胰岛素治疗方案如何,度拉糖肽耐受性普遍良好,与安慰剂相比能显著改善血糖控制。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符,NCT02750410。