Journal Club
Strain WD, Lukashevich V, Kothny W, Hoellinger MJ, Paldánius PM.
Individualised treatment targets for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes using
vildagliptin add-on or lone therapy (INTERVAL): a 24 week, randomised, double-blind,
placebo-controlled study.
Lancet. 2013 May 22. pii: S0140-6736(13)60995-2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60995-2.
Ikramuddin S, Korner J, Lee WJ, Connett JE, Inabnet WB, Billington CJ, Thomas AJ,
Leslie DB, Chong K, Jeffery RW, Ahmed L, Vella A, Chuang LM, Bessler M, Sarr MG,
Swain JM, Laqua P, Jensen MD, Bantle JP.
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2
diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized
clinical trial.
JAMA. 2013 Jun 5;309(21):2240-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.5835.
2013年6月13日 8:30-8:55
8階 医局
埼玉医科大学 総合医療センター 内分泌・糖尿病内科
Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes,
Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University
牧野 佑子
Makino, Yuko
髙嶋 正利
Takashima, Masatoshi
HbA1c 6%
Diabetologia 55:1577-96, 2012, Diabetes Care 35:1364-1379, 2012
Diabetologia 55:1577-96, 2012, Diabetes Care 35:1364-1379, 2012
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 阻害薬/GLP-1アナログ製剤
Diabetes and Vascular Research Centre, University of Exeter Medical
School, Exeter, UK (W D Strain MD); Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
East Hanover, NJ, USA (V Lukashevich MD, W Kothny MD); Novartis
Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland (M-J Hoellinger MD, P M Paldanius
www.thelancet.com Published online May 23, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60995-2
Guidelines suggest setting individualised
targets for glycaemic control in elderly
patients with type 2 diabetes, despite no
evidence. We aimed to assess the feasibility
of setting and achieving individualised
targets over 24 weeks along with
conventional HbA1c reduction using
vildagliptin versus placebo.
The drug of choice was the selective dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor
vildagliptin because it has well documented efficacy and safety in elderly patients
with type 2 diabetes. (Schweizer A, Dejager S, Foley JE, Shao Q, Kothny W.
Clinical experience with vildagliptin in the management of type 2 diabetes in a
patient population ≥75 years: a pooled analysis from a database of clinical trials.
Diabetes Obes Metab 2011; 13: 55–64. )
In this multinational, double-blind, 24 week study, we
enrolled drug-naive or inadequately controlled
(glycosylated haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] ≥7・0% to ≤10・
0%) patients with type 2 diabetes aged 70 years or older
from 45 outpatient centres in Europe. Investigators set
individualised treatment targets on the basis of age,
baseline HbA1c, comorbidities, and frailty status before
a validated automated system randomly assigned
patients (1:1) to vildagliptin (50 mg once or twice daily as
per label) or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were
proportion of patients reaching their investigator-defined
HbA1c target and HbA1c reduction from baseline to
study end.
The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01257451, and European
Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials database, number 2010-022658-18.
Figure 1: Trial profile
*Some patients were excluded for more
than one reason.
Table 1:
Baseline demographics and
clinical characteristics
Data are mean (SD) or number (%).
HbA1c=glycosylated haemoglobin
GFR (MDRD)=glomerular filtration
rate estimated using the
modification of diet in renal disease
Patients in the drug-naive and other background OAD groups
received vildagliptin (50 mg) twice daily or placebo, whereas
patients in the sulphonylurea monotherapy group received
vildagliptin (50 mg) once daily or placebo.
Study drug dose adjustments or interruptions were not permitted.
Patients remained on stable doses of OADs for the duration of
the study.
Study drug was discontinued and the patient withdrawn from the
study if the investigator decided that continuation would result in
a substantial safety risk for that patient.
Insulin or any OAD (excluding incretin analogues and DPP4
inhibitors) could be used as rescue medication by the
investigator at any time after randomisation if patients did not
achieve a satisfactory therapeutic effect. However, efficacy data
for patients receiving rescue medication were censored from the
day after the rescue medication was started.
At baseline (visit 2), an individualised 24 week HbA1c
target was defined by the investigators for each of their
patients, taking into account age of the patient, frailty
status, comorbidities, and baseline HbA1c values; most
guidelines recommend using these factors to
personalise treatments. Importantly, these investigatordefined individualised HbA1c targets were based on
the physicians’ clinical judgment and local
recommendations for glycaemic targets.
In this elderly cohort, the mean individualised HbA1c
targets set by the investigators were around 7・0%
for both treatment groups, 0・9% (range –4・4 to –0・
1) lower than the mean baseline HbA1c of 7・9% in
each treatment group.
In the placebo group, 37 (27%) of 137 patients
achieved their individualised targets as a result of
education and interactions with the study team
alone; this number was almost double, at 72 (52・
6%) of 137, in the vildagliptin group. The adjusted
OR of achieving the individualised target was 3・16
(96・2% CI 1・81–5・52; p<0・0001; fi gure 2).
Figure 2: Odds ratio for proportion of patients achieving individualised HbA1c
targets after 24 weeks
Odds ratios, associated CI, and p values were calculated from a logistic regression
model containing terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c (centred by subtracting the overall
mean baseline HbA1c of all treatment groups), background oral antidiabetic drug strata,
and pooled centres to compare the treatment effect. Squares show odds ratios for
intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis; the lines show the 96・2% Cl.
Equivalent risk ratios for the number of patients who reached the investigator-defined
HbA1c target at study endpoint were 1・92 (96・2% CI 1・29–2・86; p=0・0013) in the
intention-to-treat analysis and 1・91 (1・27–2・86; p=0・0017) in the per-protocol analysis.
*Indicates statistical significance at two-sided 3・8% level.
Table 3:
Treatment-emergent AEs
in the safety analysis
Data are number (%).
AE=adverse event.
*A patient with several
occurrences of an AE on one
treatment is counted only once
in the AE category.
†A detailed listing of the SAEs
is available in the appendix.
‡Acute pancreatitis-related AEs,
hepatic-related AEs, infectionrelated AEs, lactic-acidosisrelated AEs, muscle-related
AEs, neuropsychiatric-related
AEs, and skin or vascularrelated AEs were defi ned as
events of predefi ned risk.
Between Dec 22, 2010, and March 14, 2012, we
randomly assigned 139 patients each to the vildagliptin
and placebo groups. 37 (27%) of 137 patients in the
placebo group achieved their individualised targets by
education and interactions with the study team alone
and 72 (52・6%) of 137 patients achieved their target in
the vildagliptin group (adjusted odds ratio 3・16, 96・2%
CI 1・81–5・52; p<0・0001). This finding was
accompanied by a clinically relevant 0・9% reduction in
HbA1c from a baseline of 7・9% with vildagliptin and a
between-group difference of –0・6% (98・8% CI –0・81 to
–0・33; p<0・0001). The overall safety and tolerability
was similar in the vildagliptin and placebo groups, with
low incidence of hypoglycaemia and no emergence of
new safety signals.
This study is the first to introduce and
show the feasibility of using
individualised HbA1c targets as an
endpoint in any type 2 diabetes
population. Individualised glycaemic
target levels are achievable with
vildagliptin without any tolerability
issues in the elderly type 2 diabetes
Funding Novartis Pharma AG.
Adjustable gastric banding
Biliopancreatic diversion
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
Sleeve gastrectomy
Vertical banded gastroplasty
with duodenal switch
A meta-analysis from University of California, Los Angeles reports the
following weight loss at 36 months
Biliopancreatic diversion - 53 kg
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) - 41 kg
Open - 42 kg
Laparoscopic - 38 kg
Adjustable gastric banding - 35 kg
Vertical banded gastroplasty - 32 kg
Sleeve gastrectomy ?
※ 上記の適応を満たす方で、内科的治療が効果がな
減量外科 笠間和典先生
〒102-0084 東京都千代田区二番町7番7
Department of Surgery (Drs Ikramuddin and Leslie), Divisions of Biostatistics (Dr Connett
and Ms Thomas) and Epidemiology and Community Health (Dr Jeffery), School of Public
Health, Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes (Drs Billington and
Bantle), and Berman Center for Clinical Research (Ms Laqua), University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis; Departments of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology (Dr Korner) and Surgery
(Drs Ahmed and Bessler), Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York;
Departments of Surgery (Dr Lee) and Internal Medicine, Division of Metabolism and
Endocrinology (Dr Chuang), National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan;
Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York (Dr Inabnet);
Department of Endo- crinology, Min-Sheng General Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan (Dr
Chong); Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes (Drs Vella and
Jensen); Department of Gastroenterologic and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic,
Rochester,Minnesota (Dr Sarr); and Scottsdale Healthcare Bariatric Center, Scottsdale,
Arizona (Dr Swain).
JAMA. 2013;309(21):2240-2249
Importance Controlling glycemia,
blood pressure, and cholesterol is
important for patients with diabetes.
How best to achieve this goal is
Objective To compare Roux-en-Y
gastric bypass with lifestyle and
intensive medical management to
achieve control of comorbid risk
Design, Setting, and Participants A 12-month, 2-group
unblinded randomized trial at 4 teaching hospitals in the
United States and Taiwan involving 120 participants who had
a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 8.0% or higher, body
mass index (BMI) between 30.0 and 39.9, C peptide level of
more than 1.0 ng/mL, and type 2 diabetes for at least 6
months. The study began in April 2008.
Interventions Lifestyle-intensive medical management
intervention and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.
Medications for hyperglycemia, hypertension, and
dyslipidemia were prescribed according to protocol and
surgical techniques that were standardized.
Main Outcomes and Measures Composite goal of HbA1c
less than 7.0%, lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol less than
100 mg/dL, and systolic blood pressure less than 130 mm
Figure 2. Outcomes Over Time
Results All 120 patients received the intensive lifestyle-medical
management protocol and 60 were randomly assigned to undergo
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. After 12- months, 28 participants (49%;
95% CI, 36%-63%) in the gastric bypass group and 11 (19%; 95%
CI, 10%-32%) in the lifestyle-medical management group
achieved the primary end points (odds ratio [OR], 4.8; 95% CI,
1.9-11.7). Participants in the gastric bypass group required 3.0
fewer medications (mean, 1.7 vs 4.8; 95% CI for the difference,
2.3-3.6) and lost 26.1% vs 7.9% of their initial body weigh
compared with the lifestyle-medical management group
(difference, 17.5%; 95% CI, 14.2%- 20.7%). Regression analyses
indicated that achieving the composite end point was primarily
attributable to weight loss. There were 22 serious adverse events
in the gastric bypass group, including 1 cardiovascular event, and
15 in the lifestyle-medical management group. There were 4
perioperative complications and 6 late postoperative
complications. The gastric bypass group experienced more
nutritional deficiency than the lifestyle-medical management group.
Conclusions and Relevance In mild to
moderately obese patients with type 2
diabetes, adding gastric bypass surgery to
lifestyle and medical management was
associated with a greater likelihood of
achieving the composite goal. Potential
benefits of adding gastric bypass surgery to
the best lifestyle and medical management
strategies of diabetes must be weighed
against the risk of serious adverse events.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00641251

similar documents