ArticleDiabetology international2023
Glucose-lowering effects of semaglutide compared with dulaglutide using professional continuous glucose monitoring in outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study.
Article in Diabetology international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.