BackgroundMany susceptible loci for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have recently been identified from Caucasians through genome wide association studies (GWAS). We aimed to determine the association of 11 known loci with T2DM and impaired glucose regulation (IGR), individually and in combination, in Chinese.Methods/Principal FindingsSubjects were enrolled in: (1) a case-control study including 1825 subjects with T2DM, 1487 with IGR and 2200 with normal glucose regulation; and (2) a prospective cohort with 734 non-diabetic subjects at baseline. The latter was followed up for 3.5 years, in which 67 subjects developed T2DM. Nineteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected to replicate in both studies. We found that CDKAL1 (rs7756992), SLC30A8 (rs13266634, rs2466293), CDKN2A/2B (rs10811661) and KCNQ1 (rs2237892) were associated with T2DM with odds ratio from 1.21 to 1.35. In the prospective study, the fourth quartile of risk scores based on the combined effects of the risk alleles had 3.05 folds (95% CI, 1.31–7.12) higher risk for incident T2DM as compared with the first quartile, after adjustment for age, gender, body mass index and diabetes family history. This combined effect was confirmed in the case-control study after the same adjustments. The addition of the risk scores to the model of clinical risk factors modestly improved discrimination for T2DM by 1.6% in the case-control study and 2.9% in the prospective study.Conclusions/SignificanceOur study provided further evidence for these GWAS derived SNPs as the genetic susceptible loci for T2DM in Chinese and extended this association to IGR.
IntroductionLixisenatide is a novel GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Its efficacy and safety have been assessed in a series of phase 3 studies included in the GetGoal program. In these studies, lixisenatide was found to be superior to placebo in glycemic control. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of lixisenatide as an adjunct therapy in Asian patients with T2DM in adequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis from five lixisenatide phase 3 studies. In each of these multiethnic studies, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled (glycated hemoglobin, HbA1c ≥7%) with established OADs were randomized to lixisenatide or placebo for 24 weeks, with a balanced distribution of Asian patients in these two arms (503 and 338 patients in the intent-to-treat population, respectively).ResultsLixisenatide was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c (weighted, total mean difference −0.57%; P = 0.002). More patients treated with lixisenatide versus placebo achieved HbA1c targets of ≤7% (49.1% vs. 28.4%, P = 0.003). Lixisenatide was superior to placebo in lowering 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG) (weighted, total mean difference −5.50 mmol/l, P = 0.0005). More patients treated with lixisenatide versus placebo achieved 2-h PPG targets of ≤7.8 mmol/l (39.2% vs. 2.2%, P < 0.0001). More patients treated with lixisenatide versus placebo achieved both an HbA1c target of ≤7% and a 2-h PPG target of ≤10 mmol/l (34.8% vs. 2.69%, P < 0.00001). The body weight of the lixisenatide group tended to decrease. Lixisenatide was generally well tolerated.ConclusionLixisenatide as an adjunct therapy can significantly improve the glycemic control of Asian patients with type 2 DM who do not meet targets for glycemic control with an established OAD regimen.FundingSanofi (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0207-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.