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
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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/PMC10533751 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13340-023-00640-2 | DOI Listing |