4.7 Article

Efficacy and safety of switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes (LIRA-SWITCH): a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled 26-week trial

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 18, 期 12, 页码 1191-1198

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dom.12736

关键词

liraglutide; sitagliptin; type 2 diabetes; GLP-1 receptor agonist

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsTo confirm superiority on glycaemic control by switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide 1.8mg/d versus continued sitagliptin. Materials and methodsA randomized, multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial across 86 office- or hospital-based sites in North America, Europe and Asia. Subjects with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.5-9.5% on sitagliptin (100mg/d) and metformin (1500mg daily) for 90days were randomized to either switch to liraglutide (n=203) or continue sitagliptin (n=204), both with metformin. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. Change in body weight was a confirmatory secondary endpoint. ResultsGreater reduction in mean HbA1c was achieved with liraglutide than with continued sitagliptin [-1.14% vs. -0.54%; estimated mean treatment difference (ETD): -0.61% (95% CI -0.82 to -0.40; p<0.0001)], confirming superiority of switching to liraglutide. Body weight was reduced more with liraglutide [-3.31kg vs. -1.64kg; ETD: -1.67kg (95% CI -2.34 to -0.99; p<0.0001)]. Nausea was more common with liraglutide [44 subjects (21.8%)] than with continued sitagliptin [16 (7.8%)]. Three subjects (1.5%) taking sitagliptin reported a confirmed hypoglycaemic episode. ConclusionsSubjects insufficiently controlled with sitagliptin who switch to liraglutide can obtain clinically relevant reductions in glycaemia and body weight, without compromising safety. A switch from sitagliptin to liraglutide provides an option for improved management of type 2 diabetes while still allowing patients to remain on dual therapy.

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