阿卡波糖片联合吡格列酮二甲双胍片治疗2型糖尿病的临床疗效观察

目的:分析2型糖尿病采用阿卡波糖片联合吡格列酮二甲双胍片治疗的效果.方法:抽取本院(2019年1月-2019年12月)收治的80例2型糖尿病患者开展本次研究,根据不同疗法作为分组依据,将80例患者分为对照组、实验组,每组40例.对照组用阿卡波糖片治疗,实验组用阿卡波糖片联合吡格列酮二甲双胍片治疗,对比C反应蛋白水平、血...     

格列齐特与格列喹酮联合二甲双胍在糖尿病患者中的应用疗效对比

目的 探究比较格列齐特联合二甲双胍与格列喹酮联合二甲双胍在糖尿病患者中的应用疗效。方法选取2021年1月—2022年10月广东省河源市和平县人民医院门诊收治的90例糖尿病（2型）患者作为研究对象。以计算机随机编号分组法分为干预组（n=45）与研究组（n=45）。干预组采用格列齐特联合二甲双胍治疗,研究组采用格列喹酮联合二甲双胍治疗。比较分析两组不同联合治疗手段下的血糖水平、血糖波动情况、不良反应发生状况。结果 两组治疗前的各项血糖水平指标比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;治疗后,研究组餐后2 h血糖水平与糖化血红蛋白低于干预组,干预组空腹血糖水平低于研究组,但两组比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;研究组各项血糖波动幅度指标及不良反应总发生率均低于干预组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 相较于格列齐特联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病,格列喹酮联合二甲双胍显著降低患者血糖波动幅度,不良反应更少,用药安全性更高。     

吡格列酮、阿卡波糖在2型糖尿病治疗中的效果观察及糖化血红蛋白水平影响分析

目的分析2型糖尿病治疗中使用吡格列酮、阿卡波糖的意义,并分析对糖化血红蛋白水平影响。方法将2018年1-12月在该院治疗的82例2型糖尿病患者纳入实验中,实验患者均进行计算机编号,将单号设为对照组,双号设为观察组,每组41例,对照组仅服用吡格列酮,观察组则同时使用吡格列酮、阿卡波糖治疗。对比项目选择:有效率、血糖指标、不良反应率。结果对比两组有效率,观察组有效率为95.12%,效果更理想;对比两组血糖指标,观察组糖化血红蛋白和血糖控制质量理想;对比两组不良反应,观察组不良反应率更低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论2型糖尿病的治疗中,单纯的使用吡格列酮对血糖具有一定的控制效果,但是联合使用吡格列酮、阿卡波糖不仅在血糖控制方面更加理想,同时在不良反应方面显著降低,整体效果更加优异。     

比较二甲双胍分别联合达格列净、阿卡波糖治疗2型糖尿病的有效性及安全性

目的 分析探讨二甲双胍分别联合达格列净、阿卡波糖在2型糖尿病中的治疗有效性及安全性。方法选取2018年1月—2020年12月福建省三明市清流县中医院收治的80例2型糖尿病患者为研究对象,随机分为两组,每组40例。对照组患者采用二甲双胍与阿卡波糖治疗,观察组患者采用二甲双胍与达格列净治疗。对两组患者治疗前后的血糖水平、血脂水平及不良反应发生情况与治疗效果进行比较。结果 治疗前,两组血糖水平、血脂水平对比,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。治疗后,观察组血糖水平、血脂水平优于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组患者不良反应发生率低于对照组,治疗效果优于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 二甲双胍分别联合达格列净、阿卡波糖在2型糖尿病中都具有一定的治疗效果,其中达格列净的效果很明显,有临床应用价值。     

二甲双胍联合二肽基肽酶4抑制剂治疗未达标的2型糖尿病患者应用格列喹酮的疗效研究

目的 比较格列喹酮、预混胰岛素对二甲双胍联合二肽基肽酶4抑制剂(DPP4I)血糖控制不佳的患者降糖效果.方法 选取2017年10月至2019年9月于天津市第四中心医院就诊的应用二甲双胍和DPP4I控制血糖不佳的2型糖尿病患者280例为研究对象,分为格列喹酮和预混胰岛素组,比较两组血糖、体重变化及低血糖情况.结果 格列喹...     

吡格列酮与二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效比较

在4个临床中心观察吡格列酮(104例)和二甲双胍(104例)治疗12周对2型糖尿病的闻疗效并进行比较,结果显示这两种药物均使空腹和餐后血糖、HbA_(1c)明显下降(均P<0.05),两组疗效相似。两组不良事件发生率相似。     

阿卡波糖、二甲双胍、格列吡嗪在新诊断青年2型糖尿病患者中应用的比较

选取 94例新诊断青年 2型糖尿病患者 (2 0～ 44岁 ) ,分别接受阿卡波糖、二甲双胍、格列吡嗪治疗 3 6周 ,结果显示 3组药物有相似的降糖效果 ,但阿卡波糖可减低餐后胰岛素分泌 ,安全性及依从性更好 ,适合初诊断的青年 2型糖尿病人服用     

二甲双胍联合吡格列酮治疗2型糖尿病的临床疗效观察

目的 分析二甲双胍联合吡格列酮治疗2型糖尿病的临床效果。方法 2020年1月—2022年10月期间于选取无锡市惠山区第二人民医院治疗的67例2型糖尿病患者为研究对象,通过随机数表法分为两组,对照组（n=33）接受盐酸二甲双胍片治疗,观察组（n=34）接受盐酸二甲双胍片联合盐酸吡格列酮片治疗,对比两组患者临床治疗效果。结果 观察组总有效率高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两组治疗前的空腹血糖（fasting plasma glucose, FPG）、餐后2 h血糖（2 hour postprandial blood glucose, 2 hPG）、糖化血红蛋白（glycated hemoglobin, HbA1c）、三酰甘油（triacylglycerol, TG）、总胆固醇（total cholesterol, TC）、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（low density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C）、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇（high density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C）水平对比,差异无统计学意义（P>...     

吡格列酮与二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效及安全性对比

目的比较吡格列酮和二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效及安全性。方法将60例2型糖尿病患者分成试验组和对照组,分别给予吡格列酮、二甲双胍口服,疗程12周。观察两组治疗前后血糖、血脂、血压、胰岛素敏感性等指标。结果治疗后两组血糖、糖化血红蛋白均明显下降（P〈0.01）。试验组胰岛素、C肽明显下降（P均〈0.01）。两组血脂指标均明显改善,对照组改善更加明显（P〈0.05或〈0.01）。两组不良反应发生率比较无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。结论吡格列酮和二甲双胍具有相似的降血糖、调脂作用,而吡格列酮还有改善外周组织胰岛素敏感性及降血压作用。     

格列喹酮治疗2型糖尿病肾病25例临床观察

目的 观察格列喹酮治疗2型(非胰岛素依赖型)糖尿病肾病的临床疗效疗效.方法 2012年7月-2013年8月来该院就诊的2型糖尿病肾病患者中选取50例,随机分为治疗组25例,治疗组:口服格列喹酮30～60 mg,3次/d口服,餐前服用.对照组:格列苯脲2.5mg,每天2次,餐前服用.两组治疗等同,治疗前禁用一切降血糖药物或能影响血糖的药物.结果 治疗组:基本治愈13例,有效11例,无效1例,总有效率96％.对照组:基本治愈7例,有效10例,无效8例,总有效率68％.两组相比差异有显著性(P＜0.01).结论 格列喹酮治疗2型糖尿病肾病疗效好且安全,值得临床推广.     

Comparison of insulin monotherapy and combination therapy with insulin and metformin or insulin and rosiglitazone or insulin and acarbose in type 2 diabetes

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of treatment with insulin alone, insulin plus acarbose, insulin plus metformin, or insulin plus rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetic subjects who were previously on insulin monotherapy, and to evaluate the effects of these treatments on cardiovascular risk factors including lipid profile, C-reactive protein (CRP) and fibrinogen. Sixty-six poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients on insulin monotherapy were involved. They were randomized to insulin alone, insulin plus acarbose, insulin plus metformin, or insulin plus rosiglitazone groups for 6 months period. Mean fasting and postprandial glucose values as well as HbA1c levels significantly decreased in all groups. The greatest improvement in HbA1c was observed in insulin plus rosiglitazone (2.4%) and in insulin plus metformin (2%) groups. Daily total insulin dose was increased to 12.7 units/day in insulin alone group, decreased to 4.7 units/day in insulin plus rosiglitazone group, to 4.2 units/day in insulin plus metformin group, and to 2.7 units/day in insulin plus acarbose group. Least weight gain occurred in insulin plus metformin group (1.4 kg) and greatest weight gain occurred in insulin plus rosiglitazone group (4.6 kg). No significant change in lipid levels—except serum triglycerides—was observed in any groups. CRP and fibrinogen levels decreased in all groups, but the decrease in fibrinogen level was significantly greater in insulin plus rosiglitazone group. All groups were comparable in hypoglycemic episodes. No serious adverse event was noted in any group.     

International noninterventional study of acarbose treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aim

To obtain data on efficacy, safety and tolerability of acarbose monotherapy or combination therapy during daily-life treatment.

Methods

This prospective, non-controlled, observational study enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes, whose physician decided that acarbose treatment was appropriate, from China, Middle East, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland and Taiwan. The observation period included an initial visit and up to three follow-up visits; an extension of 2 years was realized in Pakistan and Poland.

Results

Of 14,574 patients enrolled, 14,418 comprised the intent-to-treat population. At the initial visit, 74.1% of patients had been treated with a glucose-lowering agent. Fasting blood glucose was reduced from 175.2 mg/dL at the initial visit to 133.7 mg/dL at the last visit (mean of 11.3 weeks after initial visit; P < 0.0001). Mean 2-h postprandial blood glucose decreased from 244.7 mg/dL to 172.4 mg/dL (P < 0.0001). HbA1c reduced from 8.4% to 7.4% (P < 0.0001). Glycemic efficacy was maintained over the 2-year extension period. There were 432 adverse events in 293 patients (2.03%), mainly gastrointestinal. Physicians assessed efficacy as “very good”/“good” in 85.1% of patients, and were “very satisfied”/“satisfied” with acarbose therapy in 94.3% of cases.

Conclusion

Acarbose therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in daily life in patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Comparison of acarbose and metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus insufficiently controlled with diet and sulphonylureas: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of acarbose and metformin when added to sulphonylurea therapy in diabetic patients insufficiently controlled with sulphonylureas alone. METHODS: A 12-week, single-centre, placebo-controlled study, with 89 patients randomized to receive acarbose (100 mg t.d.s.), metformin (850 mg b.d.) or placebo in addition to their sulphonylurea therapy. The study was double-blinded with respect to acarbose/placebo and single-blinded for metformin/ acarbose and metformin/placebo. Patients started a strict dietary regimen 1 week before receiving their first dose of acarbose, metformin or placebo. This regimen was individually adjusted to metabolic status and energy requirements. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, HbA1c, decreased from baseline in all three groups after 12 weeks. The decrease was greater in the two groups receiving active therapy compared with placebo (acarbose -2.3+/-0.32%; metformin -2.5+/-0.16%; placebo -1.3+/-0.34%). There was no significant difference between acarbose and metformin (P=0.65). Differences between both active therapies and placebo were statistically significant (acarbose P < or = 0.01; metformin P < or = 0.004). Reductions in body weight over the treatment period were seen in all three groups and were greatest in the acarbose group (median weight reduction: acarbose 3.5 kg; metformin, 1.0 kg; placebo 1.4 kg). There were no significant differences in the incidence of gastrointestinal side-effects between the three groups and all regimens were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The results of the study demonstrate the equivalence of acarbose and metformin for improving metabolic control in patients insufficiently controlled with diet and sulphonylureas.     

磺脲类合并二甲双胍继发失效的2型糖尿病加用拜糖平的疗效观察

目的　观察磺脲类合并二甲双胍继发失效的２ 型糖尿病加用拜糖平的疗效。方法　将５０ 例磺脲类与双胍类联合治疗继发失效的２ 型糖尿病人按非等量随机分组的原则分为拜糖平组（３０例） 和安慰剂组（２０ 例） ，治疗３ 个月，比较治疗。结果　拜糖平组患者的空腹和餐后１ 、２ 小时血糖明显下降，有效率为４８ ．３ ％ ；安慰剂组治疗前后血糖维持不变，仅１ 例有效。结论　加用拜糖平可作为磺脲类与双胍类药物联合应用失效后的治疗方法之一。     

Effects of combination of insulin and acarbose compared with insulin and gliclazide in type 2 diabetic patients

In this prospective study we aimed to compare insulin plus acarbose with insulin plus gliclazide with respect to their effect on insulin requirement, lipid profiles and body mass index (BMI) while achieving good glycemic control. Forty patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were on conventional insulin therapy (subcutaneous insulin therapy consisting of regular and NPH insulin, two times a day) were included in the study. They were randomized to double blind treatment with insulin in combination with gliclazide or acarbose for 6 months. For both groups, acceptable glycemic control was achieved at the end of study period. The mean HbA_1c levels decreased from 8.32±0.26 to 7.13±0.18% in acarbose group and 8.6±0.15 to 7.48±0.21% in the gliclazide group. The difference between groups was not significant (P 0.29). In the acarbose group, total cholesterol and LDL concentration decreased significantly while other parameters did not change. In the gliclazide group, HDL levels decreased significantly from 46.6±2.48 mg/dl to 41.3±2.09 mg/dl (P 0.001) BMI increased significantly from 27.60±1.21 kg/m² to 28.69±1.26 kg/m². (P 0.003) Total daily insulin dose was not changed in the acarbose group significantly, but increased from 42.6±2.73 to 49.27±3.58 U/day, which was significant in gliclazide group of (P 0.016). In the acarbose group, there were no significant differences between responders and nonresponders with respect to fasting and stimulated C-peptide, HbA_1c levels and baseline BMI values. But in the gliclazide group, baseline BMI values were significantly higher in the nonresponding group compared to responders (P 0.02). In conclusion, combination of insulin with acarbose can be a good alternative for type 2 diabetic patients on insulin therapy; seems more beneficial than combination with gliclazide; may have advantage of achieving good glycemic control without increasing insulin dose and BMI; also may have the advantage of providing a decrease in LDL level, which are all important to prevent atherosclerosis. Received: 29 January 1999 / Accepted in revised form: 19 May 1999     

拜唐苹联合其他口服降糖药治疗2型糖尿病的有效性和安全性临床研究——多中心、非随机、开放性、自身对照研究

目的 评价已用其他口服降精药物治疗血糖不能达标的2型糖尿病患者,联合拜唐苹后的有效性和安全性.方法 全国17个中心的493例糖尿病患者参加了本次多中心、非随机、开放性、自身对照的临床研究,在患者已用其他口服降糖药物基础上加用拜唐苹治疗后观察12周,主要的疗效参数是空腹血糖(FBG)和餐后2 h血糖(PBG)水平的变化及糖化血红蛋白(Hb)A1c水平的变化.结果 联合拜唐苹治疗后总体FBG下降1.3 mmol/L,早餐PBG下降3.3 mmol/L,午餐PBG下降3.2mmol/L,晚餐PBG下降3.44 mmol/L,HbA1c降低了0.90%,P均＜0.001.拜唐苹联合非胰岛素促泌剂组、磺脲类组和格列奈类组的FBG分别下降1.24 mmol/L、1.30 mmol/L和1.13 mmol/L;早餐PBG分别下降3.36 mmol/L、3.35 mmol/L和2.25 mmol/L;午餐PBG分别下降3.57 mmol/L、3.61 mmol/L和3.15 mmol/L,晚餐PBG分别下降3.65 mmol/L、3.48 mmol/L和3.09 mmol/L;HbA1c分别降低了0.99%、1.06%和1.01%;P均＜0.001.联合拜唐苹治疗后无严重低血糖反应,体重无增加,消化道不良反应发生率为3.60%,多为腹胀和(或)排气,但可耐受.结论 当2型糖尿病患者使用一种或多种口服降糖药治疗血糖不能达标时,联用拜唐苹可使血糖控制获得明显改善,达标率显著提高,且有良好的安全性和耐受性.     

甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病有效性及安全性的多中心临床研究

目的 观察对于尚未使用胰岛素治疗血糖控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者,启动甘精胰岛素治疗的有效性、安全性和可行性.方法 为多中心、开放性、自身对照的临床观察性研究,共22个研究中心565例2型糖尿病患者参与.患者在0～3种口服降糖药治疗的基础上联合应用甘精胰岛素治疗12周后,评价甘精胰岛素治疗的有效性和安全性.结果 受试者平均糖化血红蛋白(Hb)Alc由基线时的8.0%±0.99%下降至6.3%±0.64%(P＜0.01).以HbAlC＜6.5%以及＜7.0%为目标值,达标率分别为66.55%和87.61%.患者全天7点血糖包括3餐前血糖、3餐后血糖及睡前血糖均得到明显改善.治疗期间有92例(16.3%)受试者发生低血糖事件129次,均为一般性低血糖,发生率为0.91次/(患者·年).体重及体重指数均有所下降;无肝、肾功能损伤,其他不良反应轻微.结论 对于经单纯生活方式干预或口服降糖药治疗血糖控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者,早期启动甘精胰岛素作为胰岛素的起始治疗用药,可使大多数患者安全、有效地达标.     

拜糖平和美迪康对2型糖尿病降糖作用的临床疗效比较

比较拜糖平和美迪康对２型糖尿病的临床疗效。方法将单纯饮食控制或加用磺脲类药物治疗不满意的２型糖尿病人８０例，随机分为拜糖平组４８例和美迪康组３２例，疗程为１６周。结果与结论美迪康对降空腹血糖的疗效率主同于拜糖平，耐糖平对降餐后２小时血糖的疗效高于美迪康；     

European study on dose-response relationship of acarbose as a first-line drug in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: efficacy and safety of low and high doses

The aim of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational, five-arm study was to investigate the dose-response relationship of acarbose as a first-line drug in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (non-insulin dependent) over a range of minimal and maximal doses according to the European recommendations. The study included 495 patients from 7 countries who were insufficiently controlled with diet alone (glycosylated haemoglobin HbA_1C 6.5%–9%). Acarbose, 25, 50, 100 or 200 mg t.i.d., or placebo t.i.d. was given for 24 weeks. Even a low dosage of 25 mg t.i.d. acarbose reduced fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels (1 h postprandial –11.6%; 2 h postprandial –11.3%). Acarbose in a dosage of 200 mg t.i.d. had the greatest effect on these parameters. In the placebo group the mean 2 h postprandial area under the curve (AUC) value for blood glucose was 22.6 mmol/l after 24 weeks' therapy. The mean 2 h postprandial AUC values in the patients given acarbose at doses of 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg t.i.d. were found to be 21.2, 19.6, 20.3 and 18.5 mmol/l, respectively. The corresponding HbA_1C values for the placebo and acarbose groups were 7.83%, 7.37%, 7.08%, 6.98% and 6.79%. Interestingly, there was a plateau of blood glucose level at a dosage of 50–100 mg t.i.d. The frequency of flatulence decreased with the duration of drug therapy, but we could not find a linear relationship between doses of acarbose and the gastrointestinal side effects. Less than 3% of patients stopped tablet intake due to adverse events. Received: 18 March 1997 / Accepted in revised form: 14 November 1997