4.2 Article

Assessment of empagliflozin add-on therapy to metformin and glimepiride in patients with inadequately controlled type-2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 1733-1738

出版社

UNIV KARACHI
DOI: 10.36721/PJPS.2022.35.6.SP.1733-1738.1

关键词

Empagliflozin; metformin; glimepiride; diabetes mellitus; HbA1c

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of empagliflozin add-on therapy in diabetic patients already on metformin and glimepiride. The results showed that the addition of empagliflozin provided better control over blood sugar without exacerbating toxicity of the existing regimen.
Diabetes mellitus is a multifaceted metabolic disorder, which often required frequent blood glucose monitoring, poly-pharmacy and timely adjustments for its management. The present study focuses to check the effectiveness of empagliflozin add-on therapy in diabetic patients already taking metformin and glimepiride. This was observational, comparative and follow-up cohort study, conducted in a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. Ninety subjects were enrolled and evenly distributed in Group A (patients on oral therapy of Metformin & Glimepiride) and Group B (patients on oral therapy of metformin, glimepiride and empagliflozin) randomly. The results showed that the addition of empagliflozin to metformin and glimepiride standard therapy provided better control over blood sugar with a significant decrease in HbA1c (16.1% decrease in HbA1c for Group B patients against 8.2% in Group A patients), FBS (23.8% decrease as compared to 14.6% decrease) and BMI (1.5% decrease in Group B patients against 0.06% increase in Group A). The addition of empagliflozin did not exacerbate the toxicity of the existing regimen and is safe to be included in multiple drug regimens. Empagliflozin addition to standard antidiabetic therapy might possess beneficial impacts in managing poorly controlled Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Pakistani population.

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

4.2
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