ACEI/ARB Underused in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Chinese Population (CCMR-3B Study)

ObjectiveIn patients with diabetic kidney disease, it is well documented that RAS blockade is associated with an improved outcome. This observational, multicenter study examined the “real-world” use of ACEI/ARB in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in China.MethodData from the China Cardiometabolic Registries on blood pressure, blood lipid and blood glucose in Chinese T2DM patients (CCMR-3B) were used for the present study. Consecutive outpatients with T2DM for more than 6 months were recruited to this non-interventional, observational, cross-sectional study. Albuminuria was defined as urine albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) ≥ 30mg/g.ResultsA total of 25,454 outpatients with T2DM from 6 regions in China were enrolled, 47.0% were male, and 59.8% had hypertension. ACR was measured in 6,383 of these patients and 3,231 of them ≥ 30mg/L. Among patients with hypertension, 73.0% were on antihypertensives, and 39.7% used ACEI/ARB. Of the 2,157 patients with hypertension and albuminuria, only 48.3% used ACEI/ARB. Among the non-hypertensive patients with albuminuria, ACEI/ARB usage was < 1%. Multivariate analysis revealed that comorbidities, region, hospital tier, physician specialty and patient’s educational level were associated with ACEI/ARB use.ConclusionIn T2DM with hypertension and albuminuria in China, more than half of them were not treated with ACEI/ARB. This real world evidence suggests that the current treatment for patients with diabetes coexisting with hypertension and albuminuria in China is sub-optimal.     

Metformin increases cancer specific survival in colorectal cancer patients—National cohort study

PurposeWe aimed to assess oncological outcomes in colorectal cancer patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using metformin.MethodsPatients with colorectal cancer and T2DM during 2000–2012 period were identified form Lithuanian Cancer Registry and the National Health Insurance Fund database. Colorectal cancer-specific survival (CS) was the primary outcome. It was measured from date of colorectal cancer diagnosis to date of death due to colorectal cancer, or last known date alive.Results15,052 people who met eligibility criteria for this analysis, including 1094 (7.27%) with pre-existing type 2 diabetes (271 metformin never users and 823 metformin users) and 13 958 people without diabetes assessed. During follow-up (mean follow-up time was 4.4 years, with range from 1 day to 17 years) there were 10,927 deaths including 8559 from colorectal cancer. Significantly lower risk in CS between diabetic and non-diabetic people with lower risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.94) in diabetic patient population was seen. After adjustment for age, stage at diagnosis and metformin usage, significant difference in colorectal CS between metformin users in diabetic patient population compared to non-diabetics and metformin non-users in diabetic patient population was found (0.80 (0.72–0.89) vs 1.00 and vs 1.05 (0.91–1.23)). Overall survival (OS) was better for diabetic patients with significant difference in diabetic metformin users (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79–0.94).ConclusionsColorectal cancer patients with T2DM treated with metformin as part of their diabetic therapy appear to have a superior OS and CS. However, prospective controlled studies are still needed to evaluate the efficacy of metformin as an anti-tumor agent.     

Efficacy of different antidiabetic drugs based on metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis involving eight eligible randomized-controlled trials

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent metabolic diseases globally and it is increasing in prevalence. It is one of the most expensive diseases with respect to total health care costs per patient as a result of its chronic nature and its severe complications. To provide a more effective treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), this study aims to compare different efficacies of six kinds of hypoglycemic drugs based on metformin, including glimepiride, pioglitazone, exenatide, glibenclamide, rosiglitazone, and vildagliptin, in T2DM by a network meta-analysis that were verified by randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). Eight eligible RCT in consistency with the aforementioned six hypoglycemic drugs for T2DM were included. The results of network meta-analysis demonstrated that the exenatide + metformin and vildagliptin + metformin regimens presented with better efficacy. Patients with T2DM with unsatisfactory blood glucose control based on diet control, proper exercise, and metformin treatment were included. The original regimen and dose of medication were unchanged, followed by the addition of glimepiride, pioglitazone, exenatide, glibenclamide, rosiglitazone, and vildagliptin. The results of RCTs showed that all these six kinds of drugs reduced the HbA1c level. Compared with other regimens, exenatide + metformin reduced fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), total cholesterol (TC), and homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) levels, but increased the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level; vildagliptin + metformin decreased FPI and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels; glibenclamide + metformin decreased the FPG level, but promoted HDL; and glimepiride + metformin decreased the TC level and rosiglitazone + metformin reduced the LDL level. Our findings indicated that exenatide + metformin and vildagliptin + metformin have better efficacy in T2DM since they can improve insulin sensitivity.     

Hypoglycemia: Minimizing Its Impact in Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo review and discuss the risks and impact of hypoglycemia and provide guidance for the prevention of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).MethodsWe review and discuss the risks and impact of hypoglycemia, providing specific guidance regarding the prevention of hypoglycemia and judicial selection of glucose-lowering agents in individuals with T2DM.ResultsHypoglycemia in T2DM is underrecognized and underreported. Emerging evidence from large clinical trials suggest that hypoglycemia may be an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality in T2DM. In addition, hypoglycemia is associated with reduced quality of life, greater healthcare utilization costs, and poor adherence to medical regiments.ConclusionThese findings have led professional organizations to emphasize the prevention of hypoglycemia as an important consideration when initiating or intensifying treatment regimens. In clinical settings, particular attention should be paid to a patient’s risk for hypoglycemia when initiating or intensifying the pharmacological treatment regimen. The endocrinologist can play an important role in educating not only the patient, but also other members of the diabetes-management team regarding the need for individualized therapy. (Endocr Pract. 2013;19:526-535)     

Lifestyle Factors Associated with Type 2 Diabetes and Use of Different Glucose-Lowering Drugs: Cross-Sectional Study

Aims

To examine the lifestyle profile among persons with and without Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and among users of different glucose-lowering drugs.

Methods

We used questionnaire data from a Danish health survey and identified presence of Type 2 DM and use of medications through medical databases. We calculated age- and gender-standardized prevalence ratios (PRs) of lifestyle factors according to Type 2 DM and different glucose-lowering drugs.

Results

Of 21,637 survey participants aged 25–79 years, 680 (3%) had Type 2 DM (median age 63 years) with a median diabetes duration of 5 years. Participants with Type 2 DM had a substantially higher prevalence of obesity (36% vs. 13%, PR: 3.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8–3.6), yet more reported to eat a very healthy diet (25% vs. 21%, PR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.4) and to exercise regularly (67% vs. 53%, PR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2–1.4). Also, fewer were current smokers or had high alcohol intake. When compared with metformin users, obesity was substantially less prevalent in users of sulfonylurea (PR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4–0-8), and insulin and analogues (PR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3–0.7). Tobacco smoking was more prevalent in sulfonylurea users (PR: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.9–2.1) compared with metformin users. We found no material differences in physical exercise, diet or alcohol intake according to type of glucose-lowering drug.

Conclusions

Type 2 DM patients are substantially more obese than other individuals, but otherwise report to have a healthier lifestyle. Metformin use is strongly associated with obesity, whereas sulfonylurea use tends to be associated with tobacco smoking.     

Metformin and statins: a possible role in high-risk prostate cancer

Aim and backgroundThere is increasing evidence that statins and oral anti-diabetic drugs, such as metformin, can have a favorable role in advanced prostate cancer treatment.Metformin has been shown to inhibit proliferation of tumor cells in vitro and statins inhibit carcinogenesis by suppressing angiogenesis/invasion mechanisms. However, clinical evidence on the protective effect of these drugs is still weak.The purpose of this study is to analyze if these drugs have an impact on Biochemical-Failure-Free-Survival (BFFS) and on Distant-Failure-Free-Survival (DFFS) in localized high-risk prostate cancer.Material and MethodsFrom 2002–2016, 447 patients with histologically confirmed high-risk prostate cancer were retrospectively evaluated. All patients received radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy. Biochemical recurrence was determined by the Phoenix criteria and metastatic patients were defined by the presence of radiological metastasis. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results175 patients were treated with statins (65.3 % with a dose ≤ 20 mg/day) and 70 with metformin (75.7 % with a dose ≤ 1700 mg/day). Median follow-up was 88 months (1–194) with no differences in BFFS and DFFS between metformin and non-metformin patients (77.4 % versus 80 %, p = 0.91 and 89.4 % versus 88.7 %, p = 0.56, respectively). We did not find a statistical difference in BFFS and DFFS in patients taking higher doses of those drugs.ConclusionMetformin and statins were not associated with BFFS or DFFS improvement in our analysis. However, the small number of patients treated with these drugs limits the reliability of the results and prospective studies are needed.     

Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveThe management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often requires combinations of antihyperglycemic medications with complementary mechanisms of action. Inadequate adherence to combination therapy, possibly related to pill burden (greater number of pills and higher administration frequency) and poor tolerability, may lead to suboptimal clinical outcomes. One potential means of addressing these problems is the use of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) that simplify the treatment regimen by reducing pill burden compared with the same combination delivered as separate pills. The present study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of FDCs in the treatment of T2DM patients and provides an overview of dosing, costs, and adherence.MethodsA review of FDCs, with particular attention to those that contain metformin extended-release (XR) and allow once-daily dosing.ResultsMany FDCs contain metformin as one of the component drugs. However, the standard immediate-release (IR) formulation of metformin requires twice-daily dosing and may have tolerability problems related to adverse gastrointestinal (GI) effects. The XR formulationsof metformin can be administered once daily and have been shown to reduce the occurrence of GI effects frequently observed with metformin IR; consequently, they may have significant advantages for inclusion in FDCs. The long-term cost-effectiveness of FDCs remains to be fully determined.ConclusionFor patients taking metformin, FDCs containing metformin XR offer equivalent efficacy with reduced dose frequency and, potentially, fewer GI events compared with standard IR formulation, as well as a reduced number of pills compared with separate-pill regimens. By reducing pill burden and improving tolerability, FDCs may improve adherence. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20: 1322-1332)     

Colesevelam Hydrochloride Added to Background Metformin Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Pooled Analysis from 3 Clinical Studies

ObjectiveTo evaluate the glucose- and lipid-altering efficacy of colesevelam hydrochloride (HCl) when added to background metformin therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsThis post hoc analysis included patients with T2DM from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled pivotal studies who received metformin as part of their background antidiabetes therapy. In the pivotal studies, patients with T2DM were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam HCl (3.75 g/d) or placebo added to existing metformin (26 weeks), sulfonylurea (26 weeks), or insulin (16 weeks) monotherapy or combination therapy, wherein the combination therapies may have included metformin.ResultsIn this pooled analysis of 696 patients with T2DM who were receiving metformin monotherapy or metformin combined with other antidiabetes therapies, 355 were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam HCl and 341 to receive placebo. In comparison with placebo, colesevelam HCl significantly reduced hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) and fasting plasma glucose (mean treatment difference: -0.50% and -15.7 mg/dL, respectively; P < .001 for both), as well as significantly reduced levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; mean treatment difference: -16.5%), total cholesterol (TC; -5.8%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C; -8.2%), and apolipoprotein (apo) B (-7.6%) (P < .0001 for all). Median triglyceride levels were increased with colesevelam HCl (median treatment difference: + 12.8%; P < .0001). In comparison with placebo, colesevelam HCl significantly increased apo A-I (mean treatment difference: + 3.3%; P < .0001), whereas the mean increase in HDL-C with colesevelam HCl was not significant. Colesevelam HCl therapy was generally well tolerated.ConclusionWhen added to metformin-including therapy, colesevelam HCl significantly reduced A1C and fasting glucose, as well as levels of LDL-C, TC, non- HDL-C, and apo B in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:933-938)     

Metformin Use in Diabetes Prior to Hospitalization: Effects on Mortality in Covid-19

Objective: Although type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been reported as a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the effect of pharmacologic agents used to treat T2DM, such as metformin, on COVID-19 outcomes remains unclear. Metformin increases the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2, a known receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data from people with T2DM hospitalized for COVID-19 were used to test the hypothesis that metformin use is associated with improved survival in this population.Methods: Retrospective analyses were performed on de-identified clinical data from a major hospital in Wuhan, China, that included patients with T2DM hospitalized for COVID-19 during the recent epidemic. One hundred and thirty-one patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and T2DM were used in this study. The primary outcome was mortality. Demographic, clinical characteristics, laboratory data, diabetes medications, and respiratory therapy data were also included in the analysis.Results: Of these 131 patients, 37 used metformin with or without other antidiabetes medications. Among the 37 metformin-taking patients, 35 (94.6%) survived and 2 (5.4%) did not survive. The mortality rates in the metformin-taking group versus the non-metformin group were 5.4% (2/37) versus 22.3% (21/94). Using multivariate analysis, metformin was found to be an independent predictor of survival in this cohort (P = .02).Conclusion: This study reveals a significant association between metformin use and survival in people with T2DM diagnosed with COVID-19. These clinical data are consistent with potential benefits of the use of metformin for COVID-19 patients with T2DM.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin and Metformin Combination Versus Standard Care as First-Line Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveSodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce cardiovascular events but are currently not used as the first-line therapy. This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line empagliflozin plus metformin versus metformin monotherapy among Australians with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and existing cardiovascular disease (CVD).MethodsA Markov model with 1-year cycles and a 5-year time horizon was constructed to simulate the occurrence of recurrent cardiovascular events among Australians aged 50 to 84 years with T2DM and CVD. Efficacy results were derived from the Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients-Removing Excess Glucose trial. Costs and utilities were drawn from published sources. The evaluation adopted both health care and societal perspectives, with the latter ascribing the Australian government’s “value of statistical life year” (A$213 000) to each year lived by a person. Future outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to enhance the robustness of conclusions.ResultsCompared with metformin monotherapy, first-line empagliflozin plus metformin reduced overall cardiovascular events by 0.82% and overall deaths by 7.72% over 5 years. There were 0.2 years of life saved per person and 0.16 quality-adjusted life years gained, at a net health care cost of A$4408. These equated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of A$22 076 per year of life saved and A$28 244 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The gains in the value of statistical life year equated to A$42 530 per person, meaning that from a societal perspective, the intervention was cost-saving.ConclusionFirst-line empagliflozin plus metformin may represent a cost-effective strategy for the management of T2DM and CVD in Australia.     

Empagliflozin on top of metformin treatment improves arterial function in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Background

Deteriorated arterial function and high incidence of cardiovascular events characterise diabetes mellitus. Metformin and recent antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors, reduce cardiovascular events. We explored the possible effects of empagliflozin’s effect on top of metformin treatment on endothelial function and arterial stiffness parameters in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients.

Methods

Forty T1DM patients were randomised into three treatment groups: (1) empagliflozin (25 mg daily), (2) metformin (2000 mg daily) and (3) empagliflozin/metformin (25 mg daily and 2000 mg daily, respectively). The fourth group received placebo. Arterial function was assessed at inclusion and after 12 weeks treatment by: endothelial function [brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD), reactive hyperaemia index (RHI)], arterial stiffness [pulse wave velocity (PWV) and common carotid artery stiffness (β-stiffness)]. For statistical analysis one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post-test was used.

Results

Empagliflozin on top of metformin treatment significantly improved endothelial function as did metformin after 12 weeks of treatment: FMD [2.6-fold (P?<?0.001) vs. 1.8-fold (P?<?0.05)] and RHI [1.4-fold (P?<?0.01) vs. 1.3-fold (P?<?0.05)]. Empagliflozin on top of metformin treatment was superior to metformin in improving arterial stiffness parameters; it significantly improved PWV and β-stiffness compared to metformin [by 15.8% (P?<?0.01) and by 36.6% (P?<?0.05), respectively]. Metformin alone did not influence arterial stiffness.

Conclusion

Empagliflozin on top of metformin treatment significantly improved arterial stiffness compared to metformin in T1DM patients. Endothelial function was similarly improved in all treatment groups. Empagliflozin seems to possess a specific capacity to decrease arterial stiffness, which could support its cardioprotective effects observed in large clinical studies.Trial registration Clinical trial registration: NCT03639545

     

膀胱尿路上皮肿瘤合并2型糖尿病患者临床和病理特点的比较性研究

目的:对比分析膀胱尿路上皮肿瘤合并2型糖尿病患者的临床和病理特点,为临床诊疗工作提供一定的参考。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月至2019年2月于我院泌尿外科手术治疗且经病理确诊为原发性膀胱尿路上皮肿瘤的患者资料,合并2型糖尿病的膀胱肿瘤患者59例设为糖尿病组(T2DM组),根据性别和年龄按照1:2的比例匹配同时期未合并2型糖尿病的膀胱肿瘤118例患者为非糖尿病组(NT2DM组),比较两组患者的临床特征和病理特点。结果:T2DM组的高血压患者比例和血肌酐值高于NT2DM组(P<0.05),而在教育程度、吸烟、饮酒、BMI、前列腺增生、泌尿系感染、血常规、肝功、尿常规、肿瘤大小、数量方面无明显统计学差异(P>0.05)。T2DM组和NT2DM组在膀胱尿路上皮肿瘤良恶性分类、肿瘤数量、肿瘤大小的构成比上无明显统计学差异(P>0.05);然而,对膀胱恶性肿瘤患者进行亚组分析显示,T2DM亚组中肌层浸润性癌的比例和高级别癌的比例明显高于NT2DM亚组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:2型糖尿病可能使膀胱癌的病理分级和分期更高,导致患者预后更差,临床上应更加关注膀胱恶性肿瘤合并2型糖尿病患者的诊治。     

A 24-Week,Prospective, Randomized,Open-Label,Treat-To-Target Pilot Study of Obese Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance to Assess the Addition of Exenatide on the Efficacy of U-500 Regular Insulin Plus Metformin

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of 500 U/mL (U-500) regular insulin + metformin with U-500 regular insulin + metformin + exenatide in improving glycemic control in patients with severely insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsThirty patients with T2DM and severe insulin resistance were screened, and 28 were randomized to regular insulin U-500 + metformin or the GLP-1 analog exenatide, U-500, and metformin. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels, body weight, and insulin doses were documented at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. The number and severity hypoglycemic episodes were noted.ResultsThere were 7 males and 7 females in each group (U-500 + metformin and U-500 + metformin + exenatide). Overall, U-500 insulin + metformin, either alone or with the addition of exenatide, resulted in a significant improvement in HbA_1c in both groups, with no significant difference between the 2 groups. There was no meaningful weight change in those utilizing exenatide. Those on U-500 insulin and metformin alone had a tendency toward some weight gain. No severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study period. Symptomatic hypoglycemia was more common in the group on exenatide, but this occurred in only 5 patients, and the clinical significance of this is uncertain. Insulin dosage changes on U-500 regular insulin were variable but tended to be lower in those subjects on exenatide.ConclusionsU-500 regular insulin + metformin is effective for the treatment of T2DM patients with severe insulin resistance. The addition of exenatide may ameliorate potential weight gain but provides no additional improvement in glycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:1143-1150)     

Do Treatment Quality Indicators Predict Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Diabetes?

Background

Landmark clinical trials have led to optimal treatment recommendations for patients with diabetes. Whether optimal treatment is actually delivered in practice is even more important than the efficacy of the drugs tested in trials. To this end, treatment quality indicators have been developed and tested against intermediate outcomes. No studies have tested whether these treatment quality indicators also predict hard patient outcomes.

Methods

A cohort study was conducted using data collected from >10.000 diabetes patients in the Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Treatment (GIANTT) database and Dutch Hospital Data register. Included quality indicators measured glucose-, lipid-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering treatment status and treatment intensification. Hard patient outcome was the composite of cardiovascular events and all-cause death. Associations were tested using Cox regression adjusting for confounding, reporting hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Lipid and albuminuria treatment status, but not blood pressure lowering treatment status, were associated with the composite outcome (HR = 0.77, 0.67–0.88; HR = 0.75, 0.59–0.94). Glucose lowering treatment status was associated with the composite outcome only in patients with an elevated HbA1c level (HR = 0.72, 0.56–0.93). Treatment intensification with glucose-lowering but not with lipid-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering drugs was associated with the outcome (HR = 0.73, 0.60–0.89).

Conclusion

Treatment quality indicators measuring lipid- and albuminuria-lowering treatment status are valid quality measures, since they predict a lower risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes. The quality indicators for glucose-lowering treatment should only be used for restricted populations with elevated HbA1c levels. Intriguingly, the tested indicators for blood pressure-lowering treatment did not predict patient outcomes. These results question whether all treatment indicators are valid measures to judge quality of health care and its economics.     

2型糖尿病与骨质疏松多因素影响的研究进展

摘要：随着人们生活水平的不断提高以及国人寿命的不断延长,2型糖尿病（T2DM）＆骨质疏松（OP）的发病率在全世界范围呈现增高趋势。T2DM并发OP受着性别、年龄、病程、高血糖、糖基化终末产物过多、胰岛素、慢性并发症、肥胖、瘦素、饮食、运动及降糖药物的多种因素影响。骨质疏松症作为糖尿病慢性并发症之一,已严重影响患者的生活质量,T2DM患者在控制血糖同时,应预防其相关因素,定期进行骨密度测定是极为重要的,临床医生应给予高度重视,进行早期预防和治疗。     

Serum Levels of Soluble CD26/Dipeptidyl Peptidase-IV in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Its Association with Metabolic Syndrome and Therapy with Antidiabetic Agents in Malaysian Subjects

BackgroundA soluble form of CD26/dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (sCD26/DPP-IV) induces DPP-IV enzymatic activity that degrades incretin. We investigated fasting serum levels of sCD26/DPP-IV and active glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) in Malaysian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS), as well as the associations between sCD26/DPP-IV levels, MetS, and antidiabetic therapy.MethodsWe assessed sCD26/DPP-IV levels, active GLP-1 levels, body mass index (BMI), glucose, insulin, A1c, glucose homeostasis indices, and lipid profiles in 549 Malaysian subjects (including 257 T2DM patients with MetS, 57 T2DM patients without MetS, 71 non-diabetics with MetS, and 164 control subjects without diabetes or metabolic syndrome).ResultsFasting serum levels of sCD26/DPP-IV were significantly higher in T2DM patients with and without MetS than in normal subjects. Likewise, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were significantly higher in patients with T2DM and MetS than in non-diabetic patients with MetS. However, active GLP-1 levels were significantly lower in T2DM patients both with and without MetS than in normal subjects. In T2DM subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with significantly higher A1c levels, but were significantly lower in patients using monotherapy with metformin. In addition, no significant differences in sCD26/DPP-IV levels were found between diabetic subjects with and without MetS. Furthermore, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were negatively correlated with active GLP-1 levels in T2DM patients both with and without MetS. In normal subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with increased BMI, cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) levels.ConclusionSerum sCD26/DPP-IV levels increased in T2DM subjects with and without MetS. Active GLP-1 levels decreased in T2DM patients both with and without MetS. In addition, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with Alc levels and negatively correlated with active GLP-1 levels. Moreover, metformin monotherapy was associated with reduced sCD26/DPP-IV levels. In normal subjects, sCD26/DPP-IV levels were associated with increased BMI, cholesterol, and LDL-c.     

Caracterización y costes asociados al perfil del paciente con diabetes tipo 2 en tratamiento con metformina al que se le añade un segundo fármaco antidiabético oral: estudio de base poblacional

ObjectivesTo determine compliance, metabolic control, complications and healthcare costs of patients treated with metformin started a second antidiabetic drug in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).Patients and methodsDesign multicenter observational retrospective. Patients were evaluated ≥30 years (age), treated with metformin and started a second antidiabetic treatment during 2008-2009. There were 4 patient groups (metformin and another antidiabetic): a) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (IDPP4), b) sulfonylureas, c) glitazones and d) insulin. Main measures: comorbidity, metabolic control, compliance and complications. Patients were followed for 2 years. The cost model differed direct health costs (primary care / specialist) and indirect (labor productivity). Statistical analysis: logistic regression models and ANCOVA, p < 0.05.Results2067 patients were included (mean age: 66.6 years male: 53.1%). 25.1% started a second treatment with IDPP4; 42.9% sulfonylureas, 14.0% glitazones and 18.0% insulin. At 2 years follow-up, patients treated with IDPP4 showed greater adherence vs. 70.3%. 59.9%, 60.3% and 58.4; better control of 64.3% vs. DM2. 62.6%, 62.8% and 50.5% and a decrease of 13.9% compared to hypoglycaemia 40.4%, 37.6% and 58.9% respectively (p < 0.001). The average / unit total costs was €2,321 vs. €2,475, €2,724 and €3,164, respectively, p < 0.001. Rates of cardiovascular events and renal failure were 3.7%, 6.4%, 7.6% and 10.2% respectively.ConclusionsSulfonylureas were the most commonly used drugs. Patients treated with IDPP4 had higher compliance and control of diabetes, with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and healthcare costs.     

达格列净对2型糖尿病合并非酒精性脂肪性肝病患者血清FGF-21水平的影响

摘要 目的：分析血清成纤维细胞生长因子-21（FGF-21）与2型糖尿病（T2DM）合并非酒精性脂肪性肝病（NAFLD）患者常见指标及NAFLD纤维化评分（NFS）的相关性,进一步探讨达格列净对T2DM合并NAFLD患者血清FGF-21水平的影响。方法：选取2022年1月至2022年6月徐州医科大学附属徐州市立医院收治的80例T2DM合并NAFLD患者为研究对象（T2DM合并NAFLD组）,选择同期80例T2DM不合并NAFLD患者为T2DM组。收集腰围（WC）、身高、体重数据,计算体重指数（BMI）。测定空腹血糖（FPG）、糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）、空腹胰岛素（FINS）、甘油三酯（TG）、总胆固醇（TC）、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇（HDL-c）,低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（LDL-c）、肌酐（Cr）、丙氨酸氨基转移酶（ALT）、天冬氨酸氨基转移酶（AST ）、白蛋白（Alb）、血小板计数（PLT）等指标,计算胰岛素抵抗指数（HOMA-IR）、NFS。采用酶联免疫吸附（ELISA）法测定FGF-21水平。比较T2DM组和T2DM合并NAFLD组各项指标的差异,探讨血清FGF-21水平与T2DM合并NAFLD患者其他指标的相关性,Logistic回归分析T2DM合并NAFLD的影响因素,受试者工作特征曲线（ROC）分析各影响因素对T2DM合并NAFLD的诊断价值。将80例T2DM合并NAFLD患者按随机数字表法随机分为二甲双胍组和达格列净组各40例,治疗前后观测各项指标变化,并密切监测不良反应。结果：T2DM合并NAFLD组患者WC、BMI、FINS、HbA1c、TG、AST、ALT、HOMA-IR、NFS及FGF-21均高于 T2DM组（P＜0.05）。相关性分析显示,FGF-21水平与T2DM合并NAFLD组患者WC、BMI、HbA1c、TG、HOMA-IR、NFS均存在正相关（P<0.05）。Logistic回归分析显示,BMI、HbA1c、FGF-21、HOMA-IR为影响T2DM患者合并NAFLD的危险因素。ROC曲线分析显示,BMI、HbA1c、FGF-21、HOMA-IR对T2DM合并NAFLD均具有一定预测价值,其中以FGF-21的预测效能最佳。治疗后,达格列净组TG、AST、ALT、NFS、FGF-21水平较二甲双胍组降低更为明显（P＜0.05）。结论：血清FGF-21水平为T2DM合并NAFLD的危险因素,参与了T2DM合并NAFLD发病及进展,且对T2DM合并NAFLD有较好的预测效能。相较于二甲双胍,达格列净可明显降低T2DM合并NAFLD患者血清FGF-21水平并改善NFS,具有一定程度的肝脏保护作用。     

Effectiveness and Long-Term Safety of Thiazolidinediones and Metformin in Renal Transplant Recipients

ObjectiveTo investigate the long-term safety and effectiveness of thiazolidinediones and metformin in renal transplant recipients with posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) or preexisting diabetes mellitus (DM).MethodsRetrospective chart review was performed for renal transplant recipients with PTDM or preexisting DM followed up during the years 2000-2006. Data collected included baseline characteristics; glomerular filtration rate (GFR); creatinine; hemoglobin A_1c; and development of congestive heart failure, edema, and liver function abnormalities. GFR was calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equation calculator.ResultsThirty-two patients comprised the metformin group (PTDM = 21, preexisting DM = 11), and 46 patients were included in the TZD group (PTDM = 33, preexisting DM = 13). Only 24 patients taking metformin and 31 patients taking TZDs were included for effectiveness analysis since the others required additional medications to control their DM. Mean follow-up was 16.4 months (range, 1-55 months) for patients treated with metformin and 37.1 months (range, 6-72 months) for patients treated with TZDs. GFR was decreased from baseline in all patients, but the only significant change was in patients with preexisting DM. While there was a significant change in creatinine levels in the metformin group, only 5 patients had to discontinue the drug because of this elevation (3 in preexisting DM group, 2 in PTDM group). Change in hemoglobin A_1c from baseline was not significant in either study group. Development of congestive heart failure or liver function abnormalities was not observed.ConclusionsMetformin appears to be safe in the renal transplant population for a mean duration of 16 months, although caution should be exercised using close monitoring in patients with preexisting DM. TZDs appear to be safe for a mean duration of 37 months after renal transplant. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:979-984)