4.7 Article

Treatment satisfaction with ITCA 650, a novel drug-device delivering continuous exenatide, versus twice-daily injections of exenatide in type 2 diabetics using metformin

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 638-645

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.13133

关键词

diabetes; DM-SAT; patient-reported outcomes; QoL; treatment satisfaction

资金

  1. Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsTo evaluate treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) not adequately controlled by metformin, randomized to ITCA 650 (continuous exenatide in osmotic mini-pump) vs twice-daily exenatide injections (Ex-BID). Materials and methodsThe Diabetes Medication Satisfaction Tool (DM-SAT) was administered and assessments were made at baseline, Week 8 and Week 20 during a 24-week open-label phase 2 trial. In Stage I (Weeks 1-12), 155 patients, comprising the ITT population, were randomized to 3 groups: ITCA 650 20g/day, ITCA 650 40g/day and Ex-BID 10g BID. In Stage II (Weeks 13-24), ITCA 650 groups were re-randomized to either remain on the Stage I dose or receive a higher dose. Patients treated with Ex-BID were randomized to 40 or 60g/day ITCA 650. ResultsPatients using ITCA 650 reported significant increases in overall treatment satisfaction by Week 8 vs those using Ex-BID (P<.01), despite similar clinical efficacy and overall rates of nausea. During Stage II, further improvement in HbA1c and weight were seen after 3-fold dose escalation of ITCA 650 and treatment satisfaction was maintained. When patients using Ex-BID were switched to ITCA 650, treatment satisfaction increased and reached levels similar to those initially treated with ITCA 650. Neither GI side effects of nausea and/or vomiting, nor the procedure to sub-dermally place ITCA 650, significantly impacted treatment satisfaction scores. ConclusionITCA 650 added to metformin for patients with T2D, and for those who switched to ITCA 650 from Ex-BID, meaningfully improved glucose control and significantly increased overall treatment satisfaction.

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