4.7 Article

Glucose Variables in Type 1 Diabetes Studies With Dapagliflozin: Pooled Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data From DEPICT-1 and-2

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 1081-1087

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc18-1983

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVEThis pooled analysis assessed continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (HbA(1c) >= 7.7 to <= 11.0% [>= 61 to <= 97 mmol/mol]) who received dapagliflozin as an adjunct to adjustable insulin.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSCGM data were pooled from two 24-week, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 studies: Dapagliflozin Evaluation in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Type 1 Diabetes (DEPICT-1 and DEPICT-2). These studies comprised 1,591 patients receiving dapagliflozin 5 mg (n = 530), dapagliflozin 10 mg (n = 529), or placebo (n = 532).RESULTSBaseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Patients receiving dapagliflozin 5 mg or 10 mg both spent more time with blood glucose in the range >3.9 to <= 10.0 mmol/L (>70 to <= 180 mg/dL) over 24 h than those receiving the placebo. The adjusted mean (SE) change from baseline at week 24 was 6.48% (0.60) with dapagliflozin 5 mg, 8.08% (0.60) with dapagliflozin 10 mg, and -2.59% (0.61) with placebo. At week 24, the mean amplitude of glucose excursion over 24 h, mean 24-h glucose values, and postprandial glucose values were also improved in patients receiving dapagliflozin over those receiving placebo. No marked differences were found at week 24 between dapagliflozin 5 or 10 mg and placebo in the percentage of glucose values <= 3.9 mmol/L (<= 70 mg/dL) or <= 3.0 mmol/L (<= 54 mg/dL) over 24 h, or in nocturnal (0000-0559 h) glucose values <= 3.9 mmol/L (<= 70 mg/dL).CONCLUSIONSIn patients with type 1 diabetes, treatment with dapagliflozin over 24 weeks improved time in range, mean glucose, and glycemic variability without increasing the time spent in the range indicating hypoglycemia.

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

4.7
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