Patient preference for second- and third-line therapies in type 2 diabetes: a prespecified secondary endpoint of the TriMaster study

被引:10
|
作者
Shields, Beverley M. [1 ]
Angwin, Catherine D. [1 ]
Shepherd, Maggie H. [1 ,2 ]
Britten, Nicky [3 ]
Jones, Angus G. [1 ]
Sattar, Naveed [4 ]
Holman, Rury [5 ]
Pearson, Ewan R. [6 ]
Hattersley, Andrew T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Exeter, Dept Clin & Biomed Sci, Exeter, England
[2] Royal Devon Univ Healthcare NHS Fdn Trust, Exeter, England
[3] Univ Exeter, Inst Hlth Res, Med Sch, Exeter, England
[4] Univ Glasgow, Sch Cardiovasc & Metab Hlth, Glasgow, Scotland
[5] Univ Oxford, Radcliffe Dept Med, Diabet Trials Unit, Oxford, England
[6] Univ Dundee, Sch Med, Populat Hlth & Genom, Dundee, Scotland
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
N-OF-1; TRIALS; EFFICACY; MULTICENTER; MANAGEMENT; INJECTION; CROSSOVER; INSULIN; PEOPLE; SAFETY;
D O I
10.1038/s41591-022-02121-6
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Patient preference is very important for medication selection in chronic medical conditions, like type 2 diabetes, where there are many different drugs available. Patient preference balances potential efficacy with potential side effects. As both aspects of drug response can vary markedly between individuals, this decision could be informed by the patient personally experiencing the alternative medications, as occurs in a crossover trial. In the TriMaster (NCT02653209, ISRCTN12039221), randomized double-blind, three-way crossover trial patients received three different second- or third-line once-daily type 2 diabetes glucose-lowering drugs (pioglitazone 30 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and canagliflozin 100 mg). As part of a prespecified secondary endpoint, we examined patients' drug preference after they had tried all three drugs. In total, 448 participants were treated with all three drugs which overall showed similar glycemic control (HbA1c on pioglitazone 59.5 sitagliptin 59.9, canagliflozin 60.5 mmol mol(-1), P = 0.19). In total, 115 patients (25%) preferred pioglitazone, 158 patients (35%) sitagliptin and 175 patients (38%) canagliflozin. The drug preferred by individual patients was associated with a lower HbA1c (mean: 4.6; 95% CI: 3.9, 5.3) mmol mol(-1) lower versus nonpreferred) and fewer side effects (mean: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.64) fewer side effects versus nonpreferred). Allocating therapy based on the individually preferred drugs, rather than allocating all patients the overall most preferred drug (canagliflozin), would result in more patients achieving the lowest HbA1c for them (70% versus 30%) and the fewest side effects (67% versus 50%). When precision approaches do not predict a clear optimal therapy for an individual, allowing patients to try potential suitable medications before they choose long-term therapy could be a practical alternative to optimizing treatment for type 2 diabetes.
引用
收藏
页码:384 / 391
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Patient preference for second- and third-line therapies in type 2 diabetes: a prespecified secondary endpoint of the TriMaster study
    Beverley M. Shields
    Catherine D. Angwin
    Maggie H. Shepherd
    Nicky Britten
    Angus G. Jones
    Naveed Sattar
    Rury Holman
    Ewan R. Pearson
    Andrew T. Hattersley
    Nature Medicine, 2023, 29 : 384 - 391
  • [2] Patient stratification for determining optimal second-line and third-line therapy for type 2 diabetes: the TriMaster study
    Shields, Beverley M. M.
    Dennis, John M. M.
    Angwin, Catherine D. D.
    Warren, Fiona
    Henley, William E. E.
    Farmer, Andrew J. J.
    Sattar, Naveed
    Holman, Rury R. R.
    Jones, Angus G. G.
    Pearson, Ewan R. R.
    Hattersley, Andrew T. T.
    NATURE MEDICINE, 2023, 29 (02) : 376 - 383
  • [3] Patient stratification for determining optimal second-line and third-line therapy for type 2 diabetes: the TriMaster study
    Beverley M. Shields
    John M. Dennis
    Catherine D. Angwin
    Fiona Warren
    William E. Henley
    Andrew J. Farmer
    Naveed Sattar
    Rury R. Holman
    Angus G. Jones
    Ewan R. Pearson
    Andrew T. Hattersley
    Nature Medicine, 2023, 29 : 376 - 383
  • [4] Outcome of second- and third-line Helicobacter pylori eradication therapies based on antimicrobial susceptibility testing
    Draeger, Sarah
    Wueppenhorst, Nicole
    Kist, Manfred
    Glocker, Erik-Oliver
    JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2015, 70 (11) : 3141 - 3145
  • [5] Comparative cardiovascular risks of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors with other second- and third-line antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes
    Ou, Huang-Tz
    Chang, Kai-Cheng
    Li, Chung-Yi
    Wu, Jin-Shang
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2017, 83 (07) : 1556 - 1570
  • [6] COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF ORAL SEMAGLUTIDE AS THE SECOND-LINE AND THIRD-LINE TREATMENT FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES PATIENT
    Tan, E. C. H.
    Yang, M. C.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (12) : S52 - S53
  • [7] Therapy of malignant melanoma. First-, second- and pathogenesis-oriented third-line therapies
    Rass, K.
    Tadler, D.
    Tilgen, W.
    HAUTARZT, 2006, 57 (09): : 773 - +
  • [8] Adverse effects and associated costs with second- and third-line therapies for non-small cell lung cancer
    Ye, X.
    Darkow, T.
    Reyes, C.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2009, 27 (15)
  • [9] Standards of Care and Treatment Patterns Among Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Patients Initiating Second- and Third-Line Therapies
    Boytsov, Natalie
    Gorsh, Boris
    Anderson, Seth
    Wang, Peter Feng
    Perera, Sue
    Franklin, Meg
    BLOOD, 2022, 140 : 12554 - 12555
  • [10] A phase II study of ganetespib (G) as second- or third-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC).
    Thota, Ramya
    Goff, Laura Williams
    Chan, Emily
    Berlin, Jordan
    Jones, C. Michael
    McClanahan, Pamela
    Ayers, Gregory Dan
    Cardin, Dana Backlund
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 32 (03)