Patient preference for second- and third-line therapies in type 2 diabetes: a prespecified secondary endpoint of the TriMaster study
Authors' conclusion
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%).
Study context
- Population
- Patients with T2D receiving second- or third-line glucose-lowering therapytreated with all three drugs
- Participants
- 448 patients
- Comparison
- Pioglitazone vs sitagliptin vs canagliflozin
- Primary endpoint
- Patients' drug preference after trying all three drugs (prespecified secondary endpoint)
Methodological detailsrandomized, double-blind, three-way crossover, prespecified secondary endpoint
- Randomized
- Double-blind
- Three-way crossover
- Prespecified secondary endpoint
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Preferred drug
- HbA1c lower with preferred vs nonpreferred drug
- 4.6 (mean, mmol/mol; 95% CI 3.9, 5.3)
- Fewer side effects with preferred vs nonpreferred drug
- 0.50 (mean; 95% CI 0.35, 0.64)
- Achieving lowest individual HbA1c: individually preferred drug vs canagliflozin for all
- 70% versus 30%
- Fewest side effects: individually preferred drug vs canagliflozin for all
- 67% versus 50%
Secondary outcomes
HbA1c on each drug — between Pioglitazone and Canagliflozin
P = 0.19
- HbA1c on each drug: overall comparison of the three drugs; similar glycemic control
Safety
Side effects, preferred vs nonpreferred drug
- Fewer side effects with preferred drug
- 0.50 (mean; 95% CI 0.35, 0.64)
Original publication
Patient preference for second- and third-line therapies in type 2 diabetes: a prespecified secondary endpoint of the TriMaster study. Nat Med. Published 7 December 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →