4.3 Article

Satisfaction of switching to combination therapy with lixisenatide and basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injection therapy: A randomized controlled trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 119-126

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdi.12654

Keywords

Lixisenatide; Treatment satisfaction; Type 2 diabetes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims/IntroductionWe compared the satisfaction levels of patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing combination therapy with lixisenatide (LIX) and basal insulin with that of patients undergoing multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy. Materials and MethodsThe study was a 12-week open-label, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial. Participants were Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes receiving MDI for >3 months. Patients were randomly assigned to each treatment cohort: (i) a group that continued MDI (MDI group); and (ii) a group that switched from MDI to combination therapy with LIX and basal insulin (LIX group). The primary outcome was change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from baseline to 12 weeks between these two groups. Key secondary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and body weight changes. ResultsA total of 31 patients were initially enrolled in the study, and 26 of them completed the study. The change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores in the LIX group was significantly greater compared with that in the MDI group. Mean changes in glycated hemoglobin levels were -0.05 0.37% in the MDI group and 0.04 +/- 0.38% in the LIX group (P = 0.36). Mean changes in body weight were +0.6 +/- 1.8 kg in the MDI group and -2.5 +/- 1.8 kg in the LIX group (P < 0.01). ConclusionsSwitching from MDI to combination therapy with LIX and basal insulin improved satisfaction levels while maintaining glycemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available