コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 th efsitora; six episodes were reported with degludec.
2 signed in a 1:1 ratio to receive efsitora or degludec.
3 ), indicating non-inferiority of efsitora to degludec.
4 feriority margin of 0.4% for efsitora versus degludec.
5 are lacking on the cardiovascular safety of degludec.
6 ra, 0.2 for liraglutide, and 2.6 for insulin degludec.
7 e reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec.
8 zepatide 15 mg, and 1.34% (0.05) for insulin degludec.
9 mg, respectively, versus 26 (7%) on insulin degludec.
10 bA(1c) reduction compared with daily insulin degludec.
11 ty margin of 0.4% for efsitora compared with degludec.
12 ine to 7.36% (56.9 mmol/mol) at week 26 with degludec.
13 e; 754 events in 268 [41%] participants) and degludec (0.74 per patient-year of exposure; 346 events
14 /liraglutide (n = 278; maximum dose, 50 U of degludec/1.8 mg of liraglutide) or glargine (n = 279; no
15 In the IDegLira group, patients were given degludec 100 units/mL plus liraglutide 3.6 mg/mL in a 3
17 emia were higher with efsitora compared with degludec (14.03 vs 11.59 events per patient year of expo
18 ically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19.9 vs 10.4 events per patient-year of exposu
20 th type 2 diabetes to receive either insulin degludec (3818 patients) or insulin glargine U100 (3819
22 xploratory phase 2 study showed that insulin degludec, a basal insulin with an action profile of long
23 pants, 472 were randomly assigned to insulin degludec and 157 to insulin glargine; all were analysed
24 (99%) of 755 participants randomly allocated degludec and 248 (99%) of 251 allocated glargine were in
25 05 episodes per patient-year of exposure for degludec and glargine) but were too low for assessment o
26 9% points (0.07), respectively, with insulin degludec and insulin glargine (estimated treatment diffe
27 mol/L or severe) were similar in the insulin degludec and insulin glargine groups (42.54 vs 40.18 epi
29 compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine, both administered once da
30 nation of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogu
32 signed to once-weekly efsitora or once-daily degludec, and 623 (90%) participants completed the study
33 [NPH], lispro, glulisine, glargine, detemir, degludec, and aspart), delivery devices (vials/syringes
34 ra, by 1.4% (1.0) to 6.9% (1.1) with insulin degludec, and by 1.3% (1.1) to 7.0% (1.2) with liragluti
35 y subcutaneous injection of titrated insulin degludec, and were stratified by country, HbA(1c), and c
36 ditions used in current formulations whereas degludec behaved as a dihexamer with evidence of further
37 ed (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two o
38 med to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in patients with
39 doses of the synthetic insulins glargine and degludec currently used in patient therapy are character
42 -weekly efsitora compared with daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 2 diabetes using
43 events per participant-year of exposure with degludec (estimated rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.
45 26 was -0.51% with efsitora and -0.56% with degludec (estimated treatment difference 0.052%, 95% CI
46 range was 64.3% with efsitora and 61.2% with degludec (estimated treatment difference, 3.1 percentage
47 baseline values of 7.59% (icodec) and 7.63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA(1c) were -0.47
48 sis by sedimentation equilibrium showed that degludec exhibited reversible interaction between mono-
49 randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 249) or
50 randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 361) or
51 rgine group (estimated treatment difference [degludec-glargine] 0.08%, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.21), confirm
52 points (0.04; -7.88 mmol/mol [0.46]) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference -0.09 per
53 ter 1 year, HbA(1c) decreased by 1.1% in the degludec group and 1.2% in the glargine group (estimated
54 cemia occurred in 187 patients (4.9%) in the degludec group and in 252 (6.6%) in the glargine group,
55 tcome occurred in 325 patients (8.5%) in the degludec group and in 356 (9.3%) in the glargine group (
56 (nausea 8.8 vs 19.7%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastroin
57 glucose level was significantly lower in the degludec group than in the glargine group (128+/-56 vs.
58 person-years' exposure (PYE) in the insulin degludec group vs 2462.7 episodes per 100 PYE in the ins
59 ycemia were 277.1 per 100 PYE in the insulin degludec group vs 428.6 episodes per 100 PYE in the insu
60 (seven in the efsitora group and two in the degludec group) occurred during the trial, but none were
62 ed: 655 to the efsitora group and 331 to the degludec group, all of whom received at least one dose o
63 Lira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide gr
66 icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA(1c) reduction at week 26, with statistic
67 y of all doses of tirzepatide versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA(1c) and bod
68 tide 10 mg or 15 mg, or both, versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA(1c) at week
69 feriority of tirzepatide 5 mg versus insulin degludec in mean change from baseline in HbA(1c) at week
70 afety of tirzepatide versus titrated insulin degludec in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately con
74 sitora compared with daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 2 diabetes using basal ins
79 To test whether treatment with basal insulin degludec is associated with a lower rate of hypoglycemia
81 centage points) and from 8.24% to 7.05% with degludec (least-squares mean change, -1.17 percentage po
83 astrointestinal adverse events reported with degludec/liraglutide (adverse events, 79 for degludec/li
85 aking glargine and metformin, treatment with degludec/liraglutide compared with up-titration of glarg
87 udec/liraglutide vs glargine (-1.81% for the degludec/liraglutide group vs -1.13% for the glargine gr
88 with weight gain with glargine (-1.4 kg for degludec/liraglutide vs 1.8 kg for glargine; ETD, -3.20
90 es (episodes/patient-year exposure, 2.23 for degludec/liraglutide vs 5.05 for glargine; estimated rat
95 tora compared with participants treated with degludec might suggest the need for additional evaluatio
96 ve insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 252) and randomized 1:1 to morning or even
97 ve insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to morning or even
100 (53.0-85.8 mmol/mol) to efsitora (n=343) or, degludec (n=349), both in combination with insulin lispr
102 esized that efsitora would be noninferior to degludec (noninferiority margin, 0.4 percentage points).
103 o to receive once-daily subcutaneous insulin degludec or glargine, stratified by previous insulin reg
104 ated blocked allocation sequence, to insulin degludec or insulin glargine without stratification by u
107 VIII investigated the durability of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin glar
108 ed treatment difference (ETD) versus insulin degludec ranged from -0.59% to -1.04% for tirzepatide (p
111 of hypoglycemia among patients who received degludec than among those who received basal insulin gla
112 isodes requiring assistance) were lower with degludec than glargine (11.1 vs 13.6 episodes per patien
113 lower proportion of patients in the insulin degludec than in the insulin glargine U100 group experie
114 l confirmed hypoglycaemia was 25% lower with degludec than with glargine (4.41 vs 5.86 episodes per p
115 The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine measured by change in HbA(1c) from
116 The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine, assessed as a reduction in HbA(1c)
117 ient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio [degludec to glargine] 1.07 [0.89 to 1.28]; p=0.48).
118 d and 37 (11%; 1 [<1%] related to treatment) degludec-treated participants; the most frequent (at ~1%
119 od were 1.6% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.7%) for insulin degludec vs 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-3.7%) for insulin glargin
120 isk factor, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced
121 poglycemia, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced
122 overall symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 185.6 vs 265.4 ep
123 turnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 55.2 vs 93.6 epis
124 cturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were also seen for the
126 etes at high risk for cardiovascular events, degludec was noninferior to glargine with respect to the
128 ically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5
129 nwarranted with newer basal insulins such as degludec, which are associated with lower risks of hypog
131 s the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0.3%), and the
132 and 15 mg) was superior to titrated insulin degludec, with greater reductions in HbA(1c) and bodywei