4.8 Article

Insulin glargine versus sitagliptin in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on metformin (EASIE): a multicentre, randomised open-label trial

期刊

LANCET
卷 379, 期 9833, 页码 2262-2269

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60439-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanofi
  2. Amylin
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Bayer Healthcare
  5. Eli Lilly Co
  6. Eli Lilly AMP
  7. Co, GlaxoSmithKline
  8. Merck-Serono
  9. Merck
  10. Sharpe Dohme
  11. Takeda
  12. Boehringer Ingelheim
  13. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background In people with type 2 diabetes, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor is one choice as second-line treatment after metformin, with basal insulin recommended as an alternative. We aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of insulin glargine and sitagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, in patients whose disease was uncontrolled with metformin. Methods In this comparative, parallel, randomised, open-label trial, metformin-treated people aged 35-70 years with glycated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of 7-11%, diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months, and body-mass index of 25-45 kg/m(2) were recruited from 17 countries. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 24-week treatment with insulin glargine (titrated from an initial subcutaneous dose of 0.2 units per kg bodyweight to attain fasting plasma glucose of 4.0-5.5 mmol/L) or sitagliptin (oral dose of 100 mg daily). Randomisation (via a central interactive voice response system) was by random sequence generation and was stratified by centre. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to study end. Efficacy analysis included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one on-treatment assessment of any primary or secondary efficacy variable. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00751114. Findings 732 people were screened and 515 were randomly assigned to insulin glargine (n=250) or sitagliptin (n=265). At study end, adjusted mean reduction in HbA(1c) was greater for patients on insulin glargine (n=227; -1.72%, SE 0.06) than for those on sitagliptin (n=253; -1.13%, SE 0.06) with a mean difference of -0.59% (95% CI -0.77 to -0.42, p<0.0001). The estimated rate of all symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes was greater with insulin glargine than with sitagliptin (4.21 [SE 0.54] vs 0.50 [SE 0.09] events per patient-year; p<0.0001). Severe hypoglycaemia occurred in only three (1%) patients on insulin glargine and one (<1%) on sitagliptin. 15 (6%) of patients on insulin glargine versus eight (3%) on sitagliptin had at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event. Interpretation Our results support the option of addition of basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin. Long-term benefits might be expected from the achievement of optimum glycaemic control early in the course of the disease.

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

4.8
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