{"title":"在门诊2型糖尿病患者中,使用专业连续血糖监测,与杜拉鲁肽相比,赛马鲁肽的血糖降低效果:一项初步研究。","authors":"Akira Kurozumi, Yosuke Okada, Momo Saitoh, Yoshiya Tanaka","doi":"10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Currently, the most frequently prescribed once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in Japan are dulaglutide (DG) and semaglutide (SG). However, little is known about the differences between these two compounds in clinical practice in Japan. This study compared the efficacy and safety of DG and SG using professional CGM in 12 patients attending our outpatient with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) while using GLP-1RA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study subjects were 12 T2DM patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% on treatment with 0.75 mg/week DG for at least 24 weeks. All patients wore the professional CGM twice, once while receiving DG and once when the SG dose was increased to 0.5 mg/week.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time in range was significantly better with SG than with DG, which was the main outcome measure. Regarding the secondary outcome measures, standard deviation of glucose, average sensor glucose, time above range, maximum sensor glucose, interquartile range, SD of glucose during the nocturnal period (0000-0559), and average nocturnal sensor glucose (0000-0559) were significantly better with SG than DG. In contrast, SG had no effect on the time below range and minimum sensor glucose compared to DG.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Switching from 0.75 mg DG to 0.5 mg SG in patients with T2DM improved glycemic variability, mean glycemic index, and daily variability without increasing the hypoglycemic index. The results suggest that switching to SG may be a useful option in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with DG.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":11340,"journal":{"name":"Diabetology International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10533751/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Glucose-lowering effects of semaglutide compared with dulaglutide using professional continuous glucose monitoring in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Akira Kurozumi, Yosuke Okada, Momo Saitoh, Yoshiya Tanaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Currently, the most frequently prescribed once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in Japan are dulaglutide (DG) and semaglutide (SG). However, little is known about the differences between these two compounds in clinical practice in Japan. This study compared the efficacy and safety of DG and SG using professional CGM in 12 patients attending our outpatient with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) while using GLP-1RA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study subjects were 12 T2DM patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% on treatment with 0.75 mg/week DG for at least 24 weeks. All patients wore the professional CGM twice, once while receiving DG and once when the SG dose was increased to 0.5 mg/week.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Time in range was significantly better with SG than with DG, which was the main outcome measure. Regarding the secondary outcome measures, standard deviation of glucose, average sensor glucose, time above range, maximum sensor glucose, interquartile range, SD of glucose during the nocturnal period (0000-0559), and average nocturnal sensor glucose (0000-0559) were significantly better with SG than DG. In contrast, SG had no effect on the time below range and minimum sensor glucose compared to DG.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Switching from 0.75 mg DG to 0.5 mg SG in patients with T2DM improved glycemic variability, mean glycemic index, and daily variability without increasing the hypoglycemic index. The results suggest that switching to SG may be a useful option in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with DG.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetology International\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10533751/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetology International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Glucose-lowering effects of semaglutide compared with dulaglutide using professional continuous glucose monitoring in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study.
Objective: Currently, the most frequently prescribed once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in Japan are dulaglutide (DG) and semaglutide (SG). However, little is known about the differences between these two compounds in clinical practice in Japan. This study compared the efficacy and safety of DG and SG using professional CGM in 12 patients attending our outpatient with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) while using GLP-1RA.
Methods: The study subjects were 12 T2DM patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% on treatment with 0.75 mg/week DG for at least 24 weeks. All patients wore the professional CGM twice, once while receiving DG and once when the SG dose was increased to 0.5 mg/week.
Results: Time in range was significantly better with SG than with DG, which was the main outcome measure. Regarding the secondary outcome measures, standard deviation of glucose, average sensor glucose, time above range, maximum sensor glucose, interquartile range, SD of glucose during the nocturnal period (0000-0559), and average nocturnal sensor glucose (0000-0559) were significantly better with SG than DG. In contrast, SG had no effect on the time below range and minimum sensor glucose compared to DG.
Conclusions: Switching from 0.75 mg DG to 0.5 mg SG in patients with T2DM improved glycemic variability, mean glycemic index, and daily variability without increasing the hypoglycemic index. The results suggest that switching to SG may be a useful option in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with DG.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2.
期刊介绍:
Diabetology International, the official journal of the Japan Diabetes Society, publishes original research articles about experimental research and clinical studies in diabetes and related areas. The journal also presents editorials, reviews, commentaries, reports of expert committees, and case reports on any aspect of diabetes. Diabetology International welcomes submissions from researchers, clinicians, and health professionals throughout the world who are interested in research, treatment, and care of patients with diabetes. All manuscripts are peer-reviewed to assure that high-quality information in the field of diabetes is made available to readers. Manuscripts are reviewed with due respect for the author''s confidentiality. At the same time, reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which are respected by the editors. The journal follows a single-blind review procedure, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. Single-blind peer review is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.