4.3 Article

Psychological and quality of life changes in patients using GLP-1 analogues

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 244-246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2011.03.002

关键词

GLP-1 analogues; Exenatide; Type 2 diabetes; Health-related quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Using psychological and quality of life assessment tools, we prospectively studied changes in health-related quality of life and emotional well-being in patients who had commenced GLP-1 analogue therapy (exenatide) and compared them with new insulin starters. Methods: Two matched groups of patients with type 2 diabetes who had suboptimal glycaemic control on oral medication were assessed using a battery of well-validated psychological and quality of life tests at baseline, prior to commencement of treatment and then again after 6 months of continuous therapy, along with body mass index (BMI) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurements. Results: In the exenatide-treated patient group (n=71). treatment satisfaction was greater (P<.05), as was the well-being score, at 6 months (P<.05), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were significantly reduced (P<.05) when compared with the insulin-treated group (n=67). This was also found to be independent of changes in BMI in an analysis of covariance calculation. The effect size (using Cohen's d) of these changes was however relatively small. Conclusions: Although exenatide and insulin appear to have similar efficacy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, there are several differences between them that could influence outcomes from a patient's perspective. Exenatide affects both physiological and psychological parameters. 'Well-being' generally tends to improve in exenatide-treated patients and could be used as an adjunctive therapy for depression in the context of diabetes. A larger study is required to confirm these interesting findings. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据