4.7 Article

Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week study

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 1136-1145

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.12149

关键词

SGLT2 inhibitor

资金

  1. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsWe examined the efficacy, safety and tolerability of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) undergoing diet and exercise therapy. MethodsPatients aged 20-80years with T2DM diagnosed 3months previously, and HbA1c of 6.9-9.9% were randomized to 50, 100, 200 or 300mg canagliflozin or placebo once daily for 12weeks. The primary and secondary endpoints were changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), urinary glucose/creatinine and postprandial glycaemic parameters following a meal test. The safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory tests. ResultsOverall, 383 patients were randomized to receive either placebo (n=75), or 50mg (n=82), 100mg (n=74), 200mg (n=77) or 300mg canagliflozin (n=75). At week 12, significant reductions in HbA1c were observed in all canagliflozin groups relative to placebo (-0.61, -0.80, -0.79 and -0.88% for 50, 100, 200 and 300mg, respectively, versus +0.11% for placebo; all, p<0.01). FPG and postprandial glycaemic parameters improved significantly in the canagliflozin groups. Body weight was significantly decreased by canagliflozin. No deaths or drug-related serious AEs were reported. There was no dose-dependent increase in the incidence of AEs in the canagliflozin groups. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was low; episodes were not severe or dose dependent. Canagliflozin did not affect serum creatinine levels or the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. ConclusionsTreatment with canagliflozin for 12weeks significantly improved glycaemic control and reduced body weight in Japanese patients with T2DM. Canagliflozin was well tolerated.

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