ライフサイエンスコーパス: glargine

1 vents, 79 for degludec/liraglutide vs 18 for glargine).

2 the assigned drug (233 given exenatide, 223 glargine).

3 group receiving inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine.

4 s reported in 44 (12%) patients with insulin glargine.

5 iptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and insulin glargine.

6 0 mg semaglutide, and five (1%) with insulin glargine.

7 semaglutide, and 26 (7%) assigned to insulin glargine.

8 rash, pruritus, and urticaria) with insulin glargine.

9 60 to 1.0 mg semaglutide, and 360 to insulin glargine.

10 than among those who received basal insulin glargine.

11 .5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, or daily bedtime glargine.

12 lead to differentiation between insulin and glargine.

13 th lower risks of hypoglycaemia than insulin glargine.

14 mia was three times higher in patients given glargine (0.9 events per patient per year) than in those

15 -1.45; two trials), and neutral with insulin glargine (0.90, 0.77-1.05; one trial).

16 in HbA(1c) with inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine (-0.68%, SE 0.077, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.53) was s

17 stimated treatment difference versus insulin glargine -0.38% (95% CI -0.52 to -0.24) with 0.5 mg sema

18 up (estimated treatment difference [degludec-glargine] 0.08%, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.21), confirming non-i

19 h weight loss compared with weight gain with glargine (-1.4 kg for degludec/liraglutide vs 1.8 kg for

20 [-18.89 to -15.87]) than in those receiving glargine (-1.41% [-1.55 to -1.27], -15.41 mmol/mol [-16.

21 ion was greater with degludec/liraglutide vs glargine (-1.81% for the degludec/liraglutide group vs -

22 exposure; estimated rate ratio [degludec to glargine] 1.07 [0.89 to 1.28]; p=0.48).

23 ng assistance) were lower with degludec than glargine (11.1 vs 13.6 episodes per patient-year of expo

24 ents with uncontrolled diabetes treated with glargine (20-50 U) and metformin (>/=1500 mg/d) with gly

25 caemia was 25% lower with degludec than with glargine (4.41 vs 5.86 episodes per patient-year of expo

26 stimated treatment difference versus insulin glargine -4.62 kg (95% CI -5.27 to -3.96) with 0.5 mg se

27 etformin only, placebo metformin and insulin glargine, active metformin only, or active metformin and

28 igned to insulin degludec and 157 to insulin glargine; all were analysed in their respective treatmen

29 of 7.1% to 10.5% who were receiving insulin glargine alone or in combination with metformin or piogl

30 hough it reduced new-onset diabetes, insulin glargine also increased hypoglycemia and modestly increa

31 211 patients on inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine and 237 on biaspart insulin were included in pe

32 107 patients on inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine and 85 on biaspart insulin discontinued the tri

33 e and triple doses of the synthetic insulins glargine and degludec currently used in patient therapy

34 nts with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes taking glargine and metformin, treatment with degludec/liraglut

35 2 x 2 factorial trial of open-label insulin glargine and placebo-controlled metformin in 500 adults

36 er improvement in glycaemic control than did glargine and represents a new treatment option for patie

37 he results of the comparison between insulin glargine and standard care are reported here.

38 ascular outcomes were similar in the insulin-glargine and standard-care groups: 2.94 and 2.85 per 100

39 re allocated to inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine, and 343 to biaspart insulin; 107 patients on i

40 compared with insulin glargine (henceforth, glargine) as first injectable therapy.

41 y outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine, assessed as a reduction in HbA(1c) after 52 we

42 y and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine, both administered once daily with mealtime ins

43 tor agonist dulaglutide with that of insulin glargine, both combined with prandial insulin lispro, in

44 er patient-year of exposure for degludec and glargine) but were too low for assessment of differences

45 Unlike glargine, degludec showed strong thermodynamic non-ideal

46 , all of whom were treated with long-acting (glargine, detemir) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) i

47 pectively, with insulin degludec and insulin glargine (estimated treatment difference -0.01% points [

48 e, 2.23 for degludec/liraglutide vs 5.05 for glargine; estimated rate ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.

49 ght gain of 1.15 kg (0.70-1.61) with insulin glargine; estimated treatment difference versus insulin

50 ively, versus 0.83% (0.73-0.93) with insulin glargine; estimated treatment difference versus insulin

51 .4 kg for degludec/liraglutide vs 1.8 kg for glargine; ETD, -3.20 kg [95% CI, -3.77 to -2.64],P < .00

52 We investigated 1) the ability of purified glargine (GLA), metabolites 1 (M1) and 2 (M2), IGF-I, an

53 on with another long-acting insulin, insulin glargine (GLAR), DET led to more prolonged increases in

54 ntly lower in the degludec group than in the glargine group (128+/-56 vs. 136+/-57 mg per deciliter,

55 patients [15%]) was the same as that in the glargine group (33 [15%]).

56 udy medication) and two (<1%) in the insulin glargine group (both cardiovascular death).

57 y 1.1% in the degludec group and 1.2% in the glargine group (estimated treatment difference [degludec

58 the degludec group and in 356 (9.3%) in the glargine group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence inter

59 exenatide group versus -0.81% (0.07) in the glargine group (least-squares mean difference -0.20%, SE

60 an weight increased by 1.6 kg in the insulin-glargine group and fell by 0.5 kg in the standard-care g

61 brillation; and an unknown cause (n=3 in the glargine group).

62 the degludec group and in 252 (6.6%) in the glargine group, for an absolute difference of 1.7 percen

63 degludec/liraglutide group and 8.2% for the glargine group.

64 0.75 mg group, and 54 (18%) patients in the glargine group.

65 degludec/liraglutide group vs -1.13% for the glargine group; estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0

66 similar in the insulin degludec and insulin glargine groups (42.54 vs 40.18 episodes per patient-yea

67 similar for the insulin degludec and insulin glargine groups.

68 lucose levels for more than 6 years, insulin glargine had a neutral effect on cardiovascular outcomes

69 natide once weekly was compared with insulin glargine (henceforth, glargine) as first injectable ther

70 imes a week (IDeg 3TW) to once-daily insulin glargine (IGlar OD).

71 ty of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

72 clinical development, compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inade

73 11 to 1.85), mainly increasing 5 years after glargine initiation (HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.32 to 3.77) and

74 or active comparators (glimepiride, insulin glargine, insulin lispro, liraglutide, pioglitazone, or

75 the completed Outcome Reduction With Initial Glargine Intervention trial were assayed for 284 biomark

76 Conclusion Long-term use of insulin glargine is associated with an increased risk of breast

77 y outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine measured by change in HbA(1c) from baseline to

78 , 50 U of degludec/1.8 mg of liraglutide) or glargine (n = 279; no maximum dose), with twice-weekly t

79 mg (n=295), dulaglutide 0.75 mg (n=293), or glargine (n=296).

80 nists were more frequent with exenatide than glargine (nausea: 36 [15%] of 233 patients vs five [2%]

81 re is currently no strong rationale favoring glargine, neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, insulin de

82 :1) to receive either sitagliptin plus basal glargine once daily (the sitagliptin-basal group) or a b

83 n-basal group) or a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and rapid-acting insulin lispro or a

84 ine) and basal insulin (for example, insulin glargine or insulin detemir), the analogues simulate phy

85 placebo daily and to receive either insulin glargine or standard care.

86 inhaled insulin powder plus bedtime insulin glargine; or twice daily premixed biaspart insulin (70%

87 mg semaglutide versus 38 (11%) with insulin glargine (p=0.0021 and p=0.0202 for 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg se

88 for 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg semaglutide vs insulin glargine, respectively).

89 ec/liraglutide compared with up-titration of glargine resulted in noninferior HbA1c levels, with seco

90 Bedtime use of insulin glargine results in fewer episodes of nighttime hypoglyc

91 INTERPRETATION: Compared with insulin glargine, semaglutide resulted in greater reductions in

92 se-escalation regimen) or once-daily insulin glargine (starting dose 10 IU per day, then titrated wee

93 once-daily subcutaneous insulin degludec or glargine, stratified by previous insulin regimen, via a

94 aemic events on inhaled insulin plus insulin glargine than on biaspart insulin.

95 (2 mg subcutaneous injection) or once-daily glargine (titrated to target) to be given in addition to

96 d type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine treatment.

97 insulin degludec (3818 patients) or insulin glargine U100 (3819 patients) once daily between dinner

98 udec vs 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-3.7%) for insulin glargine U100 (McNemar P = .35; risk difference, -0.8% [

99 e-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 249) or to receive insulin glargine U

100 e-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 361) or to receive insulin glargine U

101 largine U100 (n = 249) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 252) and

102 largine U100 (n = 361) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 360) and

103 in the insulin degludec than in the insulin glargine U100 group experienced severe hypoglycemia duri

104 s 2462.7 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group for a rate ratio (RR) of 0.89 (95% C

105 vs 428.6 episodes per 100 PYE in the insulin glargine U100 group, for an RR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.7

106 r rate of hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

107 gludec is noninferior or superior to insulin glargine U100 in reducing the rate of symptomatic hypogl

108 ' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symp

109 ' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symp

110 hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 185.6 vs 265.4 episodes per 100 patie

111 ypoglycemia with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 55.2 vs 93.6 episodes/100 PYE (rate r

112 hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were also seen for the full treatment peri

113 The adjusted mean difference versus glargine was -0.22% (95% CI -0.38 to -0.07, -2.40 mmol/m

114 Compared with NPH insulin, insulin glargine was associated with an increased risk of breast

115 n velocity in the analytical ultracentrifuge glargine was shown to be primarily dimeric under solvent

116 ated degludec and 248 (99%) of 251 allocated glargine were included in the full analysis set (mean ag

117 ts, arising more often with dulaglutide than glargine, were nausea, diarrhoea, and vomiting.

118 vascular events, degludec was noninferior to glargine with respect to the incidence of major cardiova

119 rance, or type 2 diabetes to receive insulin glargine (with a target fasting blood glucose level of <

120 formin only, or active metformin and insulin glargine) with dose titration targeting fasting blood gl

121 ion sequence, to insulin degludec or insulin glargine without stratification by use of a central inte