4.7 Article

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide Monotherapy Versus Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes in a Randomized Controlled Trial (AWARD-3)

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 37, 期 8, 页码 2168-2176

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2759

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eli Lilly and Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE Compare the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with dulaglutide, a once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, to metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary objective compared dulaglutide 1.5 mg and metformin on change from baseline glycosylated hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) at 26 weeks. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This 52-week double-blind study randomized patients to subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, or metformin. Patients (N = 807) had HbA(1c) >= 6.5% (>= 48 mmol/mol) and <= 9.5% (<= 80 mmol/mol) with diet and exercise alone or low-dose oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) monotherapy; OAMs were discontinued at beginning of lead-in period. RESULTS At 26 weeks, changes from baseline HbA(1c) (least squares [LS] mean +/- SE) were: dulaglutide 1.5mg, -0.78 +/- 0.06% (-8.5 +/- 0.70 mmol/mol); dulaglutide 0.75mg, -0.71 +/- 0.06% (-7.8 +/- 0.70 mmol/mol); and metformin, -0.56 +/- 0.06%(-6.1 +/- 0.70 mmol/mol). Dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg were superior to metformin (LS mean difference): -0.22% (-2.4 mmol/mol) and -0.15% (-1.6 mmol/mol) (one-sided P < 0.025, both comparisons), respectively. Greater percentages reached HbA(1c) targets <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) and <= 6.5% (<= 48 mmol/mol) with dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75mg compared with metformin (P < 0.05, all comparisons). No severe hypoglycemia was reported. Compared with metformin, decrease in weight was similar with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and smaller with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Over 52 weeks, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting were the most common adverse events; incidences were similar between dulaglutide and metformin. CONCLUSIONS Dulaglutide improves glycemic control and is well tolerated as monotherapy in patients with early stage type 2 diabetes.

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