Individualizing treatment choices for patients with type 2 diabetes according to patient preference

Iskandar Idris
{"title":"Individualizing treatment choices for patients with type 2 diabetes according to patient preference","authors":"Iskandar Idris","doi":"10.1002/doi2.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many patients with Type 2 diabetes will require additional glucose lowering treatment to achieve optimal glucose control. Ensuring treatment adherence is therefore crucial in order to reduce the long-term risks of complications. A study recently published in Nature Medicine, known as the TriMaster study is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of allowing people with type 2 diabetes to choose their own second/third line medication to manage hyperglycaemia. This approach was thought to balance the potential efficacy with potential side effects profiles of the selected drugs. The study led by academics from the University of Exeter was a randomized double-blind, three-way cross over trial where patients received three different second- or third-line once-daily type 2 diabetes glucose-lowering drugs (pioglitazone 30 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and canagliflozin 100 mg). As part of a prespecified secondary endpoint, patients' drug preference were examined after they had tried all three drugs. In total, 448 participants were treated with all three drugs which overall showed similar glucose lowering outcomes. In terms of preference, 115 patients (25%) preferred pioglitazone, 158 patients (35%) sitagliptin and 175 patients (38%) canagliflozin. The drug preferred by individual patients was associated with a lower HbA1c (mean: 4.6; 95% CI: 3.9, 5.3) mmol mol<sup>−1</sup> lower versus nonpreferred) and was associated with fewer side effects (mean: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.64) fewer side effects versus nonpreferred). This study showed that allocating therapy based on patients individually preferred drugs, rather than allocating all patients the overall most preferred drug (canagliflozin), would result in more patients achieving the lowest HbA1c for them (70% versus 30%) and the fewest side effects (67% versus 50%). Given the comparable glucose lowering ability of different drugs, allowing patients to try suitable medications before they choose long-term therapy according to their treatment preference could be a practical alternative to individualised treatment strategy for type 2 diabetes that would facilitate long-term treatment compliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":100370,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism Now","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/doi2.31","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism Now","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/doi2.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many patients with Type 2 diabetes will require additional glucose lowering treatment to achieve optimal glucose control. Ensuring treatment adherence is therefore crucial in order to reduce the long-term risks of complications. A study recently published in Nature Medicine, known as the TriMaster study is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of allowing people with type 2 diabetes to choose their own second/third line medication to manage hyperglycaemia. This approach was thought to balance the potential efficacy with potential side effects profiles of the selected drugs. The study led by academics from the University of Exeter was a randomized double-blind, three-way cross over trial where patients received three different second- or third-line once-daily type 2 diabetes glucose-lowering drugs (pioglitazone 30 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and canagliflozin 100 mg). As part of a prespecified secondary endpoint, patients' drug preference were examined after they had tried all three drugs. In total, 448 participants were treated with all three drugs which overall showed similar glucose lowering outcomes. In terms of preference, 115 patients (25%) preferred pioglitazone, 158 patients (35%) sitagliptin and 175 patients (38%) canagliflozin. The drug preferred by individual patients was associated with a lower HbA1c (mean: 4.6; 95% CI: 3.9, 5.3) mmol mol−1 lower versus nonpreferred) and was associated with fewer side effects (mean: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.64) fewer side effects versus nonpreferred). This study showed that allocating therapy based on patients individually preferred drugs, rather than allocating all patients the overall most preferred drug (canagliflozin), would result in more patients achieving the lowest HbA1c for them (70% versus 30%) and the fewest side effects (67% versus 50%). Given the comparable glucose lowering ability of different drugs, allowing patients to try suitable medications before they choose long-term therapy according to their treatment preference could be a practical alternative to individualised treatment strategy for type 2 diabetes that would facilitate long-term treatment compliance.

根据患者偏好对2型糖尿病患者的个性化治疗选择
许多2型糖尿病患者将需要额外的降糖治疗来实现最佳血糖控制。因此,确保治疗依从性对于降低并发症的长期风险至关重要。最近发表在《自然医学》上的一项研究,即TriMaster研究,是第一项评估允许2型糖尿病患者选择自己的二线/三线药物治疗高血糖的有效性的研究。这种方法被认为是为了平衡所选药物的潜在疗效和潜在副作用。这项由埃克塞特大学学者领导的研究是一项随机双盲、三方交叉试验,患者接受三种不同的二线或三线2型糖尿病降糖药物(吡格列酮30 mg,西他列汀100 mg和卡格列净100 mg)。作为预先指定的次要终点的一部分,在患者尝试了所有三种药物后,检查他们的药物偏好。总共有448名参与者接受了所有三种药物的治疗,这三种药物总体上显示出相似的降糖效果。在偏好方面,115名患者(25%)更喜欢吡格列酮,158名患者(35%)更喜欢西他列汀,175名患者(38%)更喜欢卡格列净。个别患者首选的药物与较低的HbA1c相关(平均值:4.6;95%可信区间:3.9,5.3)mmol mol−1低于非给药组),并且与较少的副作用相关(平均值:0.50;95%置信区间:0.35,0.64),与未给药组相比副作用较少)。这项研究表明,根据患者个人偏好的药物分配治疗,而不是为所有患者分配总体上最偏好的药物(卡格列净),将使更多患者的HbA1c最低(70%对30%),副作用最少(67%对50%)。鉴于不同药物的降糖能力相当,允许患者在根据治疗偏好选择长期治疗之前尝试合适的药物,这可能是2型糖尿病个性化治疗策略的一种切实可行的替代方案,有助于长期治疗依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信