A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Glucose-lowering effects of semaglutide compared with dulaglutide using professional continuous glucose monitoring in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10533751PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sensor glucose
16
type diabetes
8
diabetes mellitus
8
professional cgm
8
time range
8
glucose
7
patients
5
glucose-lowering effects
4
effects semaglutide
4
semaglutide compared
4

Similar Publications