4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Pramlintide improved glycemic control and reduced weight in patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 30, Issue 11, Pages 2794-2799

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0589

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To assess the efficacy and safety of pramlintide in patients with type 2 diabetes suboptimally controlled with basal insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - In a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 212 patients using insulin glargine with or without oral antidiabetes agents (OAS) were randomized to addition of pramlintide (60 or 120 mu g b.i.d./t.i.d.) or placebo. Insulin glargine was adjusted to target a fasting plasma glucose concentration of 70-100 mg/dl. One coprimary end point was the change in AlC at week 16. The other coprimary end point was a 9 - 9, composite measure of overall diabetes control comprising AlC <= 7.0% mean daily postprandial glucose (PPG) increments <= 40 mg/dl, no increase in body weight, and, no severe hypoglycemia. Patients meeting all four conditions at week 16 achieved this end point. RESULTS - More pramlintide-than placebo-treated patients achieved the composite end point (25 vs. 7%; P < 0.001). Reductions (means SE) in AlC (-0.70 +/- 0.11% vs. -0.36 +/- 0.08%; P < 0.05) and PPG increments (-24.4 +/- 3.6 mg/dl vs. -0.4 +/- 3.0 mg/dl; P < 0.0001) were greater in pramlintide-versus placebo-treated patients, respectively. Glycemic improvements were accompanied by progressive weight loss with pramlintide and weight gain with placebo (-1.6 +/- 0.3 kg vs. +0.7 +/- 0.3 kg; P < 0.0001). No treatment-related severe hypoglycemia occurred. CONCLUSIONS - Pramlintide improved multiple glycemic parameters and reduced weight with no increase in hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes who were not achieving glycemic targets with basal insulin with or without OAS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available