Are you Sujata Thakurta?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)7.85 Total impact

  • S L Norris, N Lee, S Thakurta, B K S Chan
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the efficacy, effectiveness and side effects of exenatide when compared with oral glucose-lowering agents or insulin therapy. Relevant citations were identified from searches of multiple bibliographic databases supplemented with searches of the US Food and Drug Administration website and other sources. A qualitative synthesis was performed, with a random effects meta-analysis when appropriate. We identified 17 studies. In placebo-controlled trials of subjects with poorly controlled diabetes (with both groups receiving various oral glucose-lowering agents), exenatide 10 microg twice daily improved glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) by approximately 1.0% over 30 weeks [pooled estimate -0.97%, 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.16 to -0.79%, P < 0.0001] and exenatide treatment over 16-30 weeks was associated with weight loss of 1.0-2.5 kg. Exenatide appeared to confer a similar benefit to various insulin regimes for glycaemic control at follow-up between 16 and 52 weeks (pooled estimate HbA(1c)-0.04%, 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06%, P = 0.41), but was advantageous over insulin with respect to weight loss (3-6 kg loss at up to 52 weeks of follow-up). Nausea was the most common adverse event in placebo- and active-controlled trials. Rates of hypoglycaemia were similar in exenatide and insulin groups, but were higher with exenatide 10 microg twice daily compared with placebo and hypoglycaemia was most frequent when a sulphonylurea was administered. In subjects with poorly controlled diabetes, exenatide was associated with a reduction in HbA(1c) that was similar to introducing another oral agent or insulin. Weight loss may be an advantage with exenatide. Long-term studies in diverse and unselected populations are needed to clarify the benefit vs. harm profile of this drug.
    Diabetic Medicine 09/2009; 26(9):837-46. · 3.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Nancy J Lee, Susan L Norris, Sujata Thakurta
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a study to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and harms of pramlintide as adjunct therapy in adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. We searched multiple bibliographic databases to January 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration Web site, and other sources to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling inclusion criteria. Syntheses were qualitative because data were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. Three published RCTs in type 1 diabetes and 4 in type 2 disease fulfilled inclusion criteria. All trials were conducted with adults, and none was longer than 52 weeks. In type 1 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy, pramlintide was as effective as placebo in lowering glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in one trial. Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo in patients using conventional insulin therapy, with a between-group difference in HbA(1c) levels of 0.2% to 0.3% (2 studies). In patients with type 2 diabetes, pramlintide was more effective at reducing HbA(1c) levels than placebo when added to flexibly dosed glargine (without prandial insulin) and when added to fixed-dose insulin therapies, with or without oral hypoglycemic agents (between-group differences in HbA(1c) were approximately 0.4%). Weight loss was observed with pramlintide in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, whereas placebo-treated patients tended to gain weight. Pramlintide-treated patients experienced more frequent nausea and severe hypoglycemia compared with patients treated with placebo. Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo as adjunct therapy for improving HbA(1c) levels and weight in adults with type 1 diabetes on conventional insulin therapy, or type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control with their current therapies, with between-group differences in HbA(1c) levels in the range of 0.2% to 0.4%. Further research is needed to determine pramlintide's durability of hypoglycemic effect, as well as effects on patient-reported outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and long-term harms.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 8(6):542-9. · 4.61 Impact Factor