Article

Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Exenatide Twice Daily or Insulin in Clinical Practice: CHOICE Study.

Diabetes-Zentrum Quakenbrück, Fachabteilung fur Diabetologie, Stoffwechsel und Endokrinologie am Christlichen Krankenhaus, Klinisches Diabeteszentrum der DDG, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhausder Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover, Danziger Str.10, 49610, Quakenbruck, Germany, .
Diabetes Therapy 11/2012; 3(1):6. DOI:10.1007/s13300-012-0006-7 pp.6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Changes to Treatment and Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Injectable Therapy (CHOICE) is a European prospective, observational cohort study assessing time to, and factors associated with, a significant change in therapy after type 2 diabetes patients initiate their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy, and these patients' clinical outcomes over 24 months. The authors report baseline data and factors associated with the injectable treatment regimen.
Demographic, clinical, and healthcare resource-use data were collected at initiation of injectable therapy and analyzed using univariate tests between cohorts and multivariate logistic regression analysis for treatment.
Overall, 1,177 patients initiated exenatide twice daily (b.i.d.) and 1,315 initiated insulin. Most patients were recruited by secondary-care physicians. Univariate analyses revealed statistically significant differences between the characteristics of patients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. and patients who initiated insulin. On multivariate analysis, higher body mass index [BMI; 5 kg/m(2) higher: odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.84-2.40], lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c); 1% higher: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86), and lower age (5 years older: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.88) were the variables most strongly associated with increased probability of receiving exenatide b.i.d. (P < 0.0001). Patients initiating exenatide b.i.d. had a mean BMI of 35.3 ± 6.5 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) of 8.4 ± 1.4%, and age of 58 ± 10 years, compared with 29.7 ± 5.4 kg/m(2), 9.2 ± 1.9%, and 64 ± 11 years, respectively, in patients initiating insulin (P < 0.0001). Other characteristics significantly associated with exenatide b.i.d. initiation were "disinhibited eating" (Diabetes Health Profile-18), lower random blood glucose, less blood glucose self-monitoring, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and receipt of diet/exercise advice.
Patients who initiated exenatide b.i.d. were on average younger and more obese with lower HbA(1c) than those initiating insulin.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
59 Views
  • Article: 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
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this 52-week, open-label, non-inferiority trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of exenatide (an incretin mimetic) with that of biphasic insulin aspart. Patients on metformin and a sulfonylurea were randomised to exenatide (n = 253; 5 microg twice daily for 4 weeks, 10 microg thereafter) or biphasic insulin aspart (n = 248; twice-daily doses titrated for optimal glucose control), while continuing with metformin and sulfonylurea treatment. Glycaemic control achieved with exenatide was non-inferior to that achieved with biphasic insulin aspart (mean+/-SEM, HbA(1c) 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 [between-group difference -5.4 (95% CI -5.9 to -5.0) kg]. 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. Exenatide treatment resulted in HbA(1c) 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.
    Diabetologia 02/2007; 50(2):259-67. · 6.81 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

Keywords

95% confidence intervals
 
authors report baseline data
 
average younger
 
Diabetes Health Profile-18
 
European prospective
 
exenatide b.i.d. initiation
 
first injectable glucose-lowering therapy
 
higher body mass index [BMI
 
injectable therapy
 
injectable treatment regimen
 
lower glycated hemoglobin
 
lower random blood glucose
 
mean BMI
 
observational cohort study
 
patients initiating insulin
 
patients' clinical outcomes
 
secondary-care physicians
 
statistically significant differences
 
Type 2 Diabetes Initiating Injectable Therapy
 
type 2 diabetes patients