Skip to main content
. 2015 Aug 20;17(10):974–983. doi: 10.1111/dom.12534

Table 1.

Baseline demographics and characteristics

Variable Dulaglutide 0.75 mg (N = 280) Liraglutide 0.9 mg (N = 137) Placebo (N = 70) Total (N = 487)
Sex, n (%)
Men 228 (81) 113 (83) 55 (79) 396 (81)
Women 52 (19) 24 (18) 15 (21) 91 (19)
Mean (s.d.) age, years 57.2 (9.6) 57.9 (10.4) 57.7 (8.3) 57.4 (9.6)
Age ≥65 years, n (%) 68 (24) 39 (29) 13 (19) 120 (25)
Mean (s.d.) weight, kg 71.3 (12.5) 70.2 (12.5) 69.3 (11.6) 70.7 (12.4)
Mean (s.d.) BMI, kg/m2 25.6 (3.6) 25.5 (3.5) 25.2 (3.2) 25.5 (3.5)
Mean (s.d.) diabetes duration, years 6.8 (5.6) 6.3 (6.0) 6.3 (5.1) 6.6 (5.6)
Mean (s.d.) HbA1c, % 8.15 (0.77) 8.08 (0.89) 8.20 (0.83) 8.14 (0.81)
HbA1c >8.5%, n (%) 89 (32) 42 (31) 26 (37) 157 (32)
Mean (s.d.) fasting serum glucose, mmol/l 9.4 (1.9) 9.0 (1.9) 9.6 (2.2) 9.3 (1.9)
Pre‐study OAM therapy, n (%) 94 (34) 48 (35) 22 (31) 164 (34)
OAM‐naïve, n (%) 186 (66) 89 (65) 48 (69) 323 (66)
Mean (s.d.) HOMA2‐%β (fasting insulin) 34.5 (19.4) 36.9 (20.3) 33.0 (23.5) 34.9 (20.3)
Mean (s.d.) HOMA2‐%S (fasting insulin) 99.3 (53.8) 100.7 (52.8) 109.1 (57.8) 101.1 (54.1)

All patients were from Japan. BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; HOMA2‐%β, updated homeostasis model assessment of β‐cell function; HOMA2‐%S, updated homeostasis model assessment of insulin sensitivity; N, number of patients in full analysis set; OAM, oral antihyperglycaemic medication; s.d., standard deviation.