open access

Vol 8, No 11 (2007): Practical Diabetology
Original articles (translated)
Published online: 2008-02-04
Get Citation

A comparison of twice-daily exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes who were suboptimally controlled with sulfonylurea and metformin: a non-inferiority study

M.A. Nauck, S. Duran D. Kim D. Johns, J. Northrup A. Festa, R. Brodows, M. Trautmann
Diabetologia Praktyczna 2007;8(11):431-443.

open access

Vol 8, No 11 (2007): Practical Diabetology
Original articles (translated)
Published online: 2008-02-04

Abstract

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS. The aim of this 52-week, openlabel, noninferiority trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of exenatide (an incretin mimetic) with that of biphasic insulin aspart.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Patients on metformin and a sulfonylurea were randomised to exenatide (n = 253; 5 μg twice daily for 4 weeks, 10 μg thereafter) or biphasic insulin aspart (n = 248; twice-daily doses titrated for optimal glucose control), while continuing with metformin and sulfonylurea treatment.
RESULTS. Glycaemic control achieved with exenatide exenatide was non-inferior to that achieved with biphasic insulin aspart [mean ± SEM, HbA1c change: exenatide -1.04 ± 0.07%, biphasic insulin aspart -0.89 ± 0.06%; difference -0.15% (95% CI -0.32 to 0.01)]. Exenatide-treated patients lost weight, while patients treated with biphasic insulin aspart gained weight [betweengroup difference -5.4 kg (95% CI -5.9 to -5.0)]. Both treatments reduced fasting serum glucose (exenatide -1.8 ± 0.2 mmol/l; p < 0.001; biphasic insulin aspart -1.7 ± 0.2 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Greater reductions in postprandial glucose excursions following morning (p < 0.001), midday (p = 0.002) and evening meals (p < 0.001) were observed with exenatide. The withdrawal rate was 21.3% (54/253) for exenatide and 10.1% (25/248) for biphasic insulin aspart. Nausea (33% incidence, 3.5% discontinuation) was the most common adverse event observed with exenatide.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION. Exenatide treatment resulted in HbA1c reduction similar to biphasic insulin aspart and provided better postprandial glycaemic control, making it a potential alternative for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Treatment with biphasic insulin aspart was associated with weight gain and lower risk of adverse gastrointestinal events. Although the availability of glucose-lowering agents associated with weight reduction may be considered a therapeutic advance, the long-term implications of progressive weight reduction observed with exenatide have yet to be defined.

Abstract

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS. The aim of this 52-week, openlabel, noninferiority trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of exenatide (an incretin mimetic) with that of biphasic insulin aspart.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Patients on metformin and a sulfonylurea were randomised to exenatide (n = 253; 5 μg twice daily for 4 weeks, 10 μg thereafter) or biphasic insulin aspart (n = 248; twice-daily doses titrated for optimal glucose control), while continuing with metformin and sulfonylurea treatment.
RESULTS. Glycaemic control achieved with exenatide exenatide was non-inferior to that achieved with biphasic insulin aspart [mean ± SEM, HbA1c change: exenatide -1.04 ± 0.07%, biphasic insulin aspart -0.89 ± 0.06%; difference -0.15% (95% CI -0.32 to 0.01)]. Exenatide-treated patients lost weight, while patients treated with biphasic insulin aspart gained weight [betweengroup difference -5.4 kg (95% CI -5.9 to -5.0)]. Both treatments reduced fasting serum glucose (exenatide -1.8 ± 0.2 mmol/l; p < 0.001; biphasic insulin aspart -1.7 ± 0.2 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Greater reductions in postprandial glucose excursions following morning (p < 0.001), midday (p = 0.002) and evening meals (p < 0.001) were observed with exenatide. The withdrawal rate was 21.3% (54/253) for exenatide and 10.1% (25/248) for biphasic insulin aspart. Nausea (33% incidence, 3.5% discontinuation) was the most common adverse event observed with exenatide.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION. Exenatide treatment resulted in HbA1c reduction similar to biphasic insulin aspart and provided better postprandial glycaemic control, making it a potential alternative for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Treatment with biphasic insulin aspart was associated with weight gain and lower risk of adverse gastrointestinal events. Although the availability of glucose-lowering agents associated with weight reduction may be considered a therapeutic advance, the long-term implications of progressive weight reduction observed with exenatide have yet to be defined.
Get Citation

Keywords

biphasic insulin aspart; exenatide; incretin mimetic; non-inferiority; type 2 diabetes; weight reduction

About this article
Title

A comparison of twice-daily exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes who were suboptimally controlled with sulfonylurea and metformin: a non-inferiority study

Journal

Clinical Diabetology

Issue

Vol 8, No 11 (2007): Practical Diabetology

Pages

431-443

Published online

2008-02-04

Bibliographic record

Diabetologia Praktyczna 2007;8(11):431-443.

Keywords

biphasic insulin aspart
exenatide
incretin mimetic
non-inferiority
type 2 diabetes
weight reduction

Authors

M.A. Nauck
S. Duran D. Kim D. Johns
J. Northrup A. Festa
R. Brodows
M. Trautmann

Important: This website uses cookies.tanya dokter More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Czasopismo Diabetologia Kliniczna dostęne jest również w Ikamed - księgarnia medyczna

Wydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl