4.3 Article

Comparison of nateglinide and gliclazide in combination with metformin, for treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on maximum doses of metformin alone

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 757-762

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01914.x

关键词

diabetes mellitus Type 2; gliclazide; HbA(1c); metformin; nateglinide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To compare the effects of nateglinide plus metformin with gliclazide plus metformin on glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Methods Double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, randomized, multicentre study over 24 weeks. Patients with inadequate glucose control on maximal doses of metformin were randomized to additionally receive nateglinide (n = 133) or gliclazide (n = 129). Changes from baseline in HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and mealtime glucose and insulin excursions were examined. Results HbA(1c) was significantly (P < 0.001) decreased from baseline in both treatment groups (mean changes: nateglinide -0.41%, gliclazide -0.57%), but with no significant difference between treatments. Proportions of patients achieving a reduction of HbA(1c) >= 0.5% or an end point HbA(1c) < 7% were also similar (nateglinide 58.1%, gliclazide 60.2%). Changes from baseline in FPG were similarly significant in both treatment groups (nateglinide -0.63, gliclazide -0.82 mmol/l). Reduction from baseline in maximum postprandial glucose excursion were significant in the nateglinide group only (nateglinide -0.71, gliclazide -0.10 mmol/l; P = 0.037 for difference). Postprandial insulin levels were significantly higher with nateglinide compared with gliclazide. The overall rate of hypoglycaemia events was similar in the nateglinide group compared with the gliclazide group. Conclusions No significant difference was seen between nateglinide plus metformin and gliclazide plus metformin in terms of HbA(1c). However, the nateglinide combination demonstrated better postprandial glucose control.

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