4.3 Article

Safety of Sitagliptin in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis of 25 Clinical Studies

期刊

DRUGS & AGING
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 203-214

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-014-0155-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. Design A post hoc pooled analysis of 25 randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical studies with results available as of 1 December 2011. Setting Multicenter, international clinical trials. Subjects Patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older. Interventions Patients were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 1,261) or a comparator (n = 1,185) for 12 weeks to 2 years. Main Outcome Measures In each study, investigators reported serious and non-serious adverse events that occurred during the study, and serious adverse events occurring within 14 days following the last dose of study drug. This analysis used patient-level data from each study to assess the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of specific adverse events that occurred following initiation of study drug. Results Summary measures of adverse events overall were similar between the sitagliptin and non-exposed (active comparator or placebo) groups, except for higher incidences of deaths and drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were generally similar between the two groups, with the exception of hypoglycemia. A lower incidence rate of hypoglycemia was observed in the sitagliptin group compared with the non-exposed group [7.0 vs. 14.3 per 100 patient-years; difference -7.6 (95 % CI -11.2 to -4.3]), primarily due to greater use of sulfonylureas in the non-exposed group. Conclusions In this pooled safety analysis of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated for up to 2 years.

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