Contemporary Analysis of Secondary Failure of Successful Sulfonylurea Therapy

ObjectiveTo revise older estimates of secondary failure that may no longer describe the contemporary pattern of sulfonylurea (SU) monotherapy and to identify predictors of such failure.MethodsWe identified 4,091 patients who achieved hemoglobin A1c (A1C) < 8% within 1 year after initiation of SU therapy as their first-ever antihyperglycemic drug after January 1, 1996. The study subjects underwent follow-up until they added or switched antihyperglycemic medication, had A1C ≥ 8%, or terminated health plan membership or until December 31, 2004. We defined secondary failure by using two separate but overlapping approaches: (1) the addition of or switch to another anti-hyperglycemic drug after 6 months of SU therapy or (2) the first A1C measurement ≥ 8.0%.ResultsThe level of A1C achieved within 1 year after initiation of SU treatment was the most powerful predictor of secondary SU failure. About 50% of patients whose best A1C was 7.0% to 7.9% added or switched antihyperglycemic drugs within 40 months, whereas it took nearly 60 months for those in the 6.0% to 6.9% A1C category and 74 months in the A1C < 6.0% category to reach a 50% failure rate. Similarly, more than half of those patients whose best A1C was 7.0% to 7.9% had an A1C value ≥ 8% within 24 months, whereas it took nearly 60 months for study subjects in the 6.0% to 6.9% A1C category and 86 months for those in the < 6.0% category to have SU failure. Younger age and weight gain were also predictive of failure.ConclusionSecondary failure of SU therapy is inversely associated with the level of A1C achieved within the first year of SU monotherapy. Clinicians should quickly consider therapeutic adjustments to lower the A1C level rapidly if initial success is not achieved. (Endocr Pract. 2007;13:37-44)     

A Comparison of Twice-Daily Biphasic Insulin Aspart 70/30 and Once-Daily Insulin Glargine in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled on Basal Insulin and Oral Therapy: A Randomized,Open-Label Study

ObjectiveTo compare efficacy and safety of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 30) with insulin (glargine) in type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs.MethodsIn a 24-week, open-label, parallel-group trial, type 2 diabetic patients who were not maintaining glycemic control on basal insulin (glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn) + oral antidiabetic drugs were randomly assigned to twice-daily BIAsp 30 + metformin or oncedaily glargine + metformin + secretagogues (secretagogues were discontinued in the BIAsp 30 arm).ResultsOne hundred thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to the BIAsp 30 group and 143 patients were randomly assigned to the glargine group. Of 280 patients randomized, 229 (81.8%) completed the study. End-of-trial hemoglobin A_1c reductions were − 1.3% (BIAsp 30) vs − 1.2% (glargine) (treatment difference: 95% confidence interval, − 0.06 [− 0.32 to 0.20]; P = .657). Of patients taking BIAsp 30, 27.3% reached a hemoglobin A_1c level < 7.0% compared with 22.0% of patients taking glargine (treatment difference: P = .388). Glucose increment averaged over 3 meals was lower in the BIAsp 30 arm (treatment difference: − 17.8 mg/dL, P = .001). Fasting plasma glucose reductions from baseline were − 13.8 mg/ dL (BIAsp 30) vs − 42.5 mg/dL (glargine) (P = .0002). Final minor hypoglycemia rate, insulin dose, and weight change were higher in the BIAsp 30 arm (6.5 vs 3.4 events/patient per year, P <.05; 1.19 vs 0.63 U/kg; and 3.1 vs 1.4 kg, P = .0004, respectively).ConclusionsDespite not receiving secretagogues, patients taking BIAsp 30 + metformin achieved similar hemoglobin A_1c levels and lower postprandial plasma glucose compared with those receiving glargine + metformin + secretagogues. The large improvement in the glargine group suggests the patients were not true basal failures at randomization. While switching to BIAsp 30 improves glycemic control in this patient population, remaining on basal insulin and optimizing the dose may be equally effective in the short term. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:41-50)     

Efficacy and Safety of Linagliptin in Black/African American Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 6-Month,Randomized, Double-Blind,Placebo-Controlled Study

ObjectiveAlthough black/African American individuals are disproportionately affected by type 2 diabetes, there is scant clinical trial information available on antidiabetes therapies in this group. We compared linagliptin with placebo in black/African American adults who were treatment-naïve or receiving one oral antidiabetes drug.MethodsOf 226 patients randomized to 24 weeks’ linagliptin 5 mg/day or placebo, 208 had baseline and at least one on-treatment glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) measurement. Mean baseline HbA_1c was 8.6% in the linagliptin group (n = 98) and 8.68% in the placebo group (n = 110). The primary outcome was change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 24.ResultsBy week 24, mean HbA_1c changes were − 0.84% with linagliptin and − 0.25% with placebo (treatment difference, − 0.58%; P < .001), and more patients in the linagliptin group achieved HbA_1c < 7.0% (26.8% vs. 8.3%; P = .001) or an HbA_1c reduction ≥ 0.5% (54.1% vs. 30.0%; P < .001). Mean weight loss was − 1.1 kg in both groups. During the treatment period, 8 of 98 linagliptingroup patients and 17 of 110 placebo-group patients required rescue therapy (odds ratio, 0.5; P = .14). For postprandial glucose, values were available for few patients (11 placebo, 10 linagliptin), and thus the between-group difference was associated with wide confidence intervals (CIs) (difference, − 1.97 mg/dL; 95% CI, − 53.80 to 49.86; P = .94). In the overall study population, a similar proportion of patients in both groups had adverse events (58.5% vs. 61.7%); most events were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to study drug. Investigator-defined hypoglycemia was rare (3 linagliptin-group patients and 1 placebogroup patient), with no severe events (requiring external assistance).ConclusionThis study confirms that linagliptin is efficacious and well tolerated in black/African American patients with type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20: 412-420)     

Effects of Colesevelam,Rosiglitazone, or Sitagliptin on Glycemic Control and Lipid Profile in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by Metformin Monotherapy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the glycemic effect of colesevelam, rosiglitazone, or sitagliptin when added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and to examine the effects of these antidiabetes agents on lipid and lipoprotein levels.MethodsThis 16-week, open-label pilot study conducted between May 2007 and April 2008 at 20 sites in the United States, 7 sites in Mexico, and 6 sites in Colombia, enrolled adults with inadequately controlled type 2 DM (glycated hemoglobin [HbA_1c], 7.0%-10.0%) on a stable metformin regimen (1500-2550 mg daily for ≥ 3 months). At Week 0, participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to open-label colesevelam hydrochloride, 3.75 g daily; openlabel rosiglitazone maleate, 4 mg daily; or open-label sitagliptin phosphate, 100 mg daily, in addition to existing metformin therapy. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA_1c from baseline to Week 16 with last (postbaseline) observation carried forward.ResultsIn total, 169 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups (colesevelam, n = 57; rosiglitazone, n = 56; and sitagliptin, n = 56), and 141 participants (83.4%) completed the study. Least-squares mean reductions in HbA_1c from baseline were observed in all groups at Week 16 last observation carried forward (colesevelam, -0.3% [P <.031]; rosiglitazone: -0.6% [P <.001]; sitagliptin: -0.4% [P <.009]) At study end, 10 of 56 participants (17.9%) in the colesevelam group, 19 of 54 (35.2%) in the rosiglitazone group, and 15 of 55 (27.3%) in the sitagliptin group achieved HbA_1c < 7.0%. Colesevelam significantly reduced mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels relative to baseline (11.6%), whereas levels were significantly increased with rosiglitazone and sitagliptin at Week 16 last observation carried forward (7.8% and 7.7%, respectively). Twenty-two of 52 participants (42.3%) in the colesevelam group, 12 of 51 (23.5%) in the rosiglitazone group, and 13 of 53 (24.5%) in the sitagliptin group achieved LDL cholesterol < 100 mg/dL at Week 16 last observation carried forward.ConclusionAll 3 antidiabetes agents significantly improved glycemic control, but only colesevelam also significantly reduced LDL-cholesterol levels in patients with type 2 DM. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:53-63)     

Computerized Physician Order Entry- Based Hyperglycemia Inpatient Protocol and Glycemic Outcomes: The CPOE-HIP Study

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of implementing a computerized physician order entry (CPOE)-based hyperglycemia inpatient protocol (HIP) on glycemic outcomes.MethodsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study compared blood glucose values, hemoglobin A_1c values, diabetes medication profiles, and demographic data of diabetic patients admitted to medicine services between March 15, 2006, and April 11, 2006 (before CPOE-HIP protocol was adopted), with data of diabetic patients admitted between October 3, 2007, and October 30, 2007 (1 year after CPOE-HIP protocol was implemented).ResultsA total of 241 diabetic patients comprised the pre-CPOE-HIP group and 197 patients comprised the post-CPOE-HIP group. After the protocol was adopted, there was a decrease of 10.8 mg/dL in the mean glucose concentration per patient-day (175.5 ± 81.2 mg/dL vs 164.7 ± 82 mg/dL, P < .001). Additional glycemic control improvements included a 5% increase in patient-days with serum glucose concentrations between 70 and 150 mg/ dL (41.1% vs 46.1%, P = .008) and a 3.1% decrease in patient-days with glucose concentrations above 299 mg/dL (16.9% vs 13.8%, P = .023). The percentage of patientdays with glucose concentrations less than or equal to 50 mg/dL was not significantly different (0.95% vs 1.27%, P = .15). Compliance with the American Diabetes Association recommendation for hemoglobin A_1c inpatient testing frequency increased from 37.3% to 64.5% (P < .001). The length of stay did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsImplementation of a hospital-wide, CPOE-based, hyperglycemia management protocol had a favorable impact onglucose targets, decreasing excessively high glucose levels without increasing clinically meaningful hypoglycemic events. Compliance with hemoglobin A_1c testing recommendations also improved. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:389-397)     

Patient-Led Versus Physician-Led Titration of Insulin Glargine in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Multinational Atlas Study

ObjectiveSelf-adjustment of insulin dose is commonly practiced in Western patients with type 2 diabetes but is usually not performed in Asian patients. This multinational, 24-week, randomized study compared patient-led with physician-led titration of once-daily insulin glargine in Asian patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were on 2 oral glucose-lowering agents.MethodsPatient-led (n = 275) or physician-led (n = 277) subjects followed the same dose-titration algorithm guided by self-monitored fasting blood glucose (FBG; target, 110 mg/dL [6.1 mmol/L]). The primary endpoint was change in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at week 24 in the patient-led versus physician-led titration groups.ResultsPatient-led titration resulted in a significantly higher drop in HbA_1c value at 24 weeks when compared with physician-led titration (− 1.40% vs. − 1.25%; mean difference, − 0.15; 95% confidence interval, − 0.29 to 0.00; P = .043). Mean decrease in FBG was greatest in the patient-led group (− 2.85 mmol/L vs. − 2.48 mmol/L; P = .001). The improvements in HbA_1c and FBG were consistent across countries, with similar improvements in treatment satisfaction in both groups. Mean daily insulin dose was higher in the patient-led group (28.9 units vs. 22.2 units; P < .001). Target HbA_1c of < 7.0% without severe hypoglycemia was achieved in 40.0% and 32.9% in the patient-led and physician-led groups, respectively (P = .086). Severe hypoglycemia was not different in the 2 groups (0.7%), with an increase in nocturnal and symptomatic hypoglycemia in the patient-led arm.ConclusionPatient-led insulin glargine titration achieved near-target blood glucose levels in Asian patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were on 2 oral glucose-lowering drugs, demonstrating that Asian patients can self-uptitrate insulin dose effectively when guided. (Endocr Pract. 2015;21:143-157)     

Initial Combination Therapy with Metformin and Colesevelam for Achievement of Glycemic and Lipid Goals Min Early Type 2 Diabetes

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with metformin plus colesevelam in patients with early type 2 diabetes.MethodsIn this 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults with type 2 diabetes (hemoglobin A1c [A1C] values of 6.5% to 10.0%) and hypercholesterolemia (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels ≥ 100 mg/dL) were randomly assigned (1:1) to colesevelam (3.75 g/d) or placebo in combination with open-label metformin (850 mg/d; uptitrated at week 2 to 1, 700 mg/d). The primary efficacy evaluation was change in A1C from baseline to study end (week 16 with last observation carried forward).ResultsIn total, 286 patients were randomized: metformin/colesevelam (n = 145) or metformin/placebo (n = 141). Mean A1C was reduced by 1.1% with metformin/ colesevelam (from 7.8% at baseline to 6.6% at study end) and by 0.8% with metformin/placebo (from 7.5% to 6.7%), resulting in a treatment difference of -0.3% at study end (P = .0035). In addition, metformin/colesevelam significantly reduced LDL-C (-16.3%), total cholesterol (-6.1%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.3%), apolipoprotein B (-8.0%), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (-17%) and increased apolipoprotein A-I (+ 4.4%) and triglycerides (+ 18.6%) versus metformin/placebo (P < .01 for all). The proportions of patients who achieved recommended goals with metformin/colesevelam versus metformin/placebo, respectively, were as follows: A1C < 7.0% (67% versus 56% [P = .0092]), LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (48% versus 18% [P < .0001]), and composite A1C < 7.0% + LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (40% versus 12% [P < .0001]). Safety and tolerability were similar between the treatment groups.ConclusionMetformin plus colesevelam may be a valid option for initial therapy to achieve glycemic and lipid goals safely in early type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:629-640)     

Diurnal Glucose Patterns of Exenatide Once Weekly: A 1-Year Study Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Ambulatory Glucose Profile Analysis

ObjectiveTo use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to characterize diurnal glucose patterns produced by a novel formulation of exenatide consisting of biodegradable polymeric microspheres that entrap exenatide and provide extended release enabling once-weekly administration.MethodsWe performed a subgroup analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes who participated in a multicenter trial (DURATION-1: Effects of Exenatide Long- Acting Release on Glucose Control and Safety in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) comparing once-weekly with twice-daily formulations of exenatide. We are the only center to use CGM with ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) analysis to characterize glucose exposure, variability, and stability in participants assigned to exenatide once weekly.ResultsSeven of the 303 patients in the larger study population were included in the subgroup analysis. Mean age (57.6 ± 7 years), weight (102 ± 17 kg), body mass index (34 ± 3 kg/m²), and duration of diabetes (5 ± 2 years) were comparable to characteristics of the larger study population. At 30 weeks and 52 weeks, participants treated with exenatide once weekly had a mean reduction in hemoglobin A_1c level of 1.3 ± 0.3% and 1.0 ± 0.3%, respectively (P < .05). CGM analysis revealed a significant (P < .01) decrease in diurnal glucose exposure for 4 participants during nocturnal and daytime periods. Excess glucose exposure (compared with reference values) decreased in 6 of 7 participants, as did glucose variability. Glucose stability improved in 5 participants. The percentage of glucose values less than 70 mg/dL initially increased during the first half of the study then decreased to baseline levels by study end.ConclusionsIndividual glucose profiles revealed that changes in hemoglobin A_1c did not consistently parallel alterations in glucose exposure, variability, and stability. AGPs provided a visual representation of improved glucose responses to exenatide once weekly. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:326-334)     

Effect of Hospital Admission on Glycemic Control 1 Year After Discharge

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of hospital admission on glycemic control in patients with diabetes up to 1 year after discharge.MethodsWe retrospectively studied 826 adults with diabetes admitted to a tertiary care medical center and with available hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) values for 6 months before admission and 1 year after discharge. We compared them with 826 nonhospitalized adults with diabetes matched for age, sex, race, comorbidity, and baseline A1C level. We determined the change in A1C value relative to hospitalization and baseline A1C level by using multivariate random effects models for repeated measures. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of achieving recommended A1C levels at 1 year.ResultsPatients with baseline A1C levels ≥ 9% had an adjusted rate of change in A1C value of − 0.10% per month (95% confidence interval [CI], − 0.18 to − 0.022; P = .012) during the course of 1 year, without significant differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients in the mean rate of change. Hospitalized patients, however, were less likely to achieve an A1C goal of ≤ 7% at 1 year (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.86; P < .001) or an A1C of < 8% at 1 year (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.81; P < .001) in comparison with the nonhospitalized patients.ConclusionDespite an overall trend toward improved glycemia over time, hospitalized patients with uncontrolled diabetes were less likely to achieve glycemic targets at 1 year in comparison with matched nonhospitalized patients. These results suggest a missed opportunity to improve long-term glycemic control in hospitalized patients with diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:456-463)     

Clinical Outcomes Using Long-Term Combination Therapy with Insulin Glargine and Exenatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo examine the long-term effects of combination insulin glargine/exenatide treatment on glycemic control.MethodsWe conducted a 24-month retrospective US chart review of patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) levels > 7.0% for whom glargine and exenatide were coprescribed in differing order (glargine added after exenatide [exenatide/glargine]; exenatide added after glargine [glargine/exenatide]). Treatment order groups were combined to form a pooled treatment group. Changes from baseline in A1C, patients with A1C ≤ 7.0%, body weight, glargine/exenatide daily dose, oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use, and hypoglycemia were evaluated.ResultsTreatment groups were similar at baseline; however, patients in the glargine/exenatide group (n = 121) (vs exenatide/glargine group [n = 44]) had longer disease duration (11.8 vs 8.0 years) and took fewer OADs (1.7 vs 2.3). Overall, baseline A1C was 8.8 ± 1.3% and weight was 109.5 ± 25.3 kg. Significant A1C reductions emerged at month 6 and persisted throughout 24 months (vs baseline) in both treatment groups (pooled: –0.7 ± 1.6; P < .001), and 33.0% of patients achieved an A1C level ≤ 7.0%. After 24 months of exenatide/glargine, body weight remained unchanged (0.7 ± 8.3 kg; P = .640). With glargine/exenatide, body weight decreased (–2.5 ± 6.7 kg; P = .001). At month 24, daily glargine dose was 0.40 ± 0.23 units/kg for the exenatide/glargine group and 0.47 ± 0.30 units/kg for the glargine/exenatide group. Hypoglycemia frequency was similar in both treatment groups.ConclusionsRegardless of treatment order, long-term combined therapy with glargine and exenatide for up to 24 months in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM suggests reduction of A1C without significant weight gain or increased hypoglycemia risk. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:17-25)     

Synthesis and pharmacological evaluation of new arylpiperazines N-{4-[4-(aryl) piperazine-1-yl]-phenyl}-amine derivatives: Putative role of 5-HT1A receptors

In an attempt to design novel 5-HT_1A agonists/partial agonists, based on an arylpiperazine nucleus, a series of N-{4-[4-(aryl)piperazine-1-yl]-phenyl}-amine derivatives were synthesized and biologically tested. The anxiolytic effect of the compounds was investigated employing the Elevated plus Maze (EPM) task. On the basis of in vivo functional test, compound 1c (3 mg/kg) and 4c (3 mg/kg) induced significant increments in open arm entries and time on EPM as compared to Buspirone. The anxiolytic effects of compounds 1c and 4c were effectively antagonized by WAY-100635, a 5-HT_1A receptor antagonist (0.5 mg/kg). Furthermore, we have also evaluated the concentration of 5-HT in the brain tissue using HPLC with fluorescent detection. Our result showed that serotonin levels were significantly decreased by ～38% (p < 0.001) and ～32% (p < 0.001) after acute administration of compounds 1c and 4c, respectively. These findings suggest that the anxiolytic like activity of these new arylpiperazines is mediated via 5-HT_1A receptors in the brain.     

Sitagliptin Compared with Thiazolidinediones as a Third-Line Oral Antihyperglycemic Agent in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare sitagliptin and thiazolidinediones as third-line oral antihyperglycemic agents among ethnic minority patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsIn an open-label, single-arm design, we treated type 2 diabetic patients who had suboptimal diabetes control on maximum tolerated dosages of metformin plus sulfonylureas with the addition of sitagliptin, 100 mg daily, and compared their responses with findings from a historical control group of similar patients treated with rosiglitazone, 8 mg daily, or pioglitazone, 45 mg daily, as their third-line oral agent. Patients were assessed bimonthly, and those who achieved hemoglobin A_1c levels less than 7.5% at 4 months continued through 1 year of follow-up.Results:One hundred eight patients were treated with sitagliptin, and 104 patients constituted the historical control group treated with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. At baseline, sitagliptinand thiazolidinedione-treated patients had identical hemoglobin A_1c levels (mean ± SD) (9.4 ± 1.8% and 9.4 ± 1.9%, respectively) and similar known diabetes duration (6.7 ± 5.0 years and 7.6 ± 5.8 years, respectively). Hemoglobin A_1c was reduced in both groups at 4 months (P < .001), but the reduction was greater with thiazolidinediones than with sitagliptin (-2.0 ± 1.7% vs -1.3 ± 1.8%; P = .006), as was the proportion of patients achieving a hemoglobin A_1c level less than 7.5% (62% vs 46%; P = .026). Of all patients achieving a hemoglobin A_1c level less than 7.5% at 4 months, the same proportions in each group sustained their hemoglobin A_1c level less than 7.5% by 12 months (59% vs 58%). Sitagliptin was well tolerated.ConclusionsAmong ethnic minority patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes while taking maximum tolerated dosages of metformin and sulfonylureas, thirdline add-on therapy with a thiazolidinedione controlled hyperglycemia more effectively than sitagliptin after 4 months. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:691-698)     

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Lispro in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of insulin lispro in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m² (obese) compared with patients with BMIs < 30 kg/m² (nonobese).MethodsA retrospective analysis of predefined endpoints from 7 randomized clinical trials of T2DM patients treated with insulin lispro was performed. The primary efficacy measure was to assess the noninferiority of insulin lispro in obese patients versus nonobese patients as measured by the change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA_1c) from baseline to Month 3 (n = 1,518), using a noninferiority margin of 0.4%. The secondary measures included overall hypoglycemia incidence and event rates and relative change in body weight.ResultsMean changes in HbA_1c from baseline (9.06% for obese and 8.92% for nonobese) to Month 3 were similar for obese patients (–1.03%) and nonobese (–1.02%), with a least squares (LS) mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of –0.05% (–0.17%, 0.07%; P = .384). The overall incidence of hypoglycemia (53% vs. 63%; P < .001) and rate of hypoglycemia (0.93 vs. 1.76 events per 30 days; P < .001) was significantly lower in obese patients compared with nonobese patients. The 2 BMI cohorts did not demonstrate a significant difference in mean percent changes in body weights (LS mean difference = 0.4% [–0.2%, 0.9%]; P = .202).ConclusionObese patients with T2DM treated with insulin lispro were able to achieve the same level of glycemic control as their nonobese counterparts, with some evidence supporting a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:389-398)     

Clinical Markers Implying the Need for Treatment in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo assess the association of the point-of-care hemoglobin A_1c (POC A1C), fasting blood glucose (FBG), and BMI with fetal macrosomia and the need for medication in women with gestational diabetes (GDM).MethodsPOC A1C, FBG, and BMI values at GDM diagnosis and fetal weight at delivery were obtained for women identified from a prospective patient registry. These outcomes were compared between women who did not require medication for GDM and women who did require medication.ResultsMean values of POC A1C, FBG, and BMI in 67 patients who required medication were higher than those in 71 patients who did not require medication (POC A1C: 5.72 ± 0.45% vs 5.35 ± 0.46% [P < .001]; FBG: 97.4 ± 12.3 mg/dL vs 86.4 ± 9.5 mg/dL [P < .001]; BMI: 35.4 ± 6.4 kg/m2 vs 30.4 ± 6.2 kg/m2 [P < .001]). There was a modest correlation between POC A1C and FBG (Spearman rho 0.4, P < .001) and between POC A1C and BMI (Spearman rho 0.366, P < .001). Maternal POC A1C was not correlated with fetal weight at delivery (Spearman rho –0.010, P = .915).ConclusionsHigher POC A1C, FBG, and BMI values were associated with the need for medication in women with GDM. The use of clinical markers to assess glycemic control sooner in pregnancy may lead to the earlier identification of women at risk for GDM and earlier intervention to decrease the risk for complications. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:62-65)     

Impact of Race/Ethnicity on the Efficacy and Safety of Commonly used Insulin Regimens: A Post HOC Analysis of Clinical Trials in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo explore the impact of race/ethnicity on the efficacy and safety of commonly used insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsIn this post hoc analysis, pooled data from 11 multinational clinical trials involving 1455 patients with type 2 diabetes were used to compare specific insulin treatments in Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African-descent, and Caucasian patients. Insulin treatments included once daily insulin glargine or neutral protamine Hagedorn (BASAL), insulin lispro mix 75/25 twice daily (LMBID), or insulin lispro mix 50/50 three times daily (LMTID).ResultsRace/ethnicity was associated with significant outcome differences for each of the insulin regimens. BASAL therapy was associated with greater improvement in several measures of glycemic control among Latino/Hispanic patients compared with Caucasian patients (lower end point hemoglobin A1c, greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c from baseline, and a larger proportion of patients achieving hemoglobin A1c level < 7%). In contrast, LMBID therapy was associated with higher end point hemoglobin A_1c and a smaller decrease in hemoglobin A_1c from baseline in Latino/Hispanic and Asian patients than in Caucasian patients. Furthermore, fewer Asian patients attained a hemoglobin A_1c level < 7% than did Caucasians patients. For LMTID therapy, hemoglobin A_1c outcomes were comparable across patient groups. Fasting blood glucose and glycemic excursions varied among racial/ethnic groups for the 3 insulin regimens. Weight change was comparable among racial/ethnic groups in each insulin regimen. During treatment with LMTID, Asian patients experienced higher incidence and rate of severe hypoglycemia than Caucasian patients.ConclusionsLatino/Hispanic, Asian, and African-descent patients with type 2 diabetes show different metabolic responses to insulin therapy, dependent in part on insulin type and regimen intensity. (Endocr Pract. 2010: 818-828:pp)     

Exenatide Therapy in Obese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treated with Insulin

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of exenatide on clinical parameters in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus whose hyperglycemia is not adequately controlled despite treatment with oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin.MethodsIn this retrospective analysis, clinical progress of 52 obese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide, 5 mcg twice daily, in an outpatient setting was reviewed. Treatment initiation was between September and December 2005. Mean follow-up period was 26 weeks. Thirty-eight patients took exenatide regularly (Group A); 14 patients discontinued exenatide because of insurance, personal, or economic reasons (Group B). Measurements at baseline and at follow-up included body weight; blood pressure; and levels of hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), and plasma lipids. Insulin dosage requirements were assessed.ResultsMean body weight (± standard error of the mean) decreased by 6.46 ± 0.8 kg (P < .001) in Group A and increased by 2.4 ± 0.6 kg in Group B (P < .001). In Group A, mean HbA_1c decreased by 0.6 ± 0.21% (P = .007), and the insulin dosage requirement decreased for rapid-acting and mixed insulins (P < .02). In Group A, means of the following parameters decreased: serum total cholesterol by 8.5 ± 3.3% (P = .03), triglycerides by 26 ± 7.6% (P = .01), systolic blood pressure by 9.2 ± 3.3 mm Hg (P = .02), and high-sensitivity CRP by 34 ± 14.3% (P = .05). These indices did not change in Group B.ConclusionExenatide effectively treats obese patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin, leading to weight loss and reduction in levels of HbA_lc, systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, and high-sensitivity CRP. (Endocr Pract 2007;13:444-450)     

Colesevelam Hydrochloride to Treat Hypercholesterolemia and Improve Glycemia in Prediabetes: A Randomized,Prospective Study

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of the bile acid sequestrant colesevelam hydrochloride in patients with hypercholesterolemia and prediabetes.MethodsIn this 16-week, randomized, double-blind study, adults with untreated prediabetes (2-hour postoral glucose tolerance test [OGTT] glucose ≥ 140 to 199 mg/dL, fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 110 to 125 mg/ dL, or both), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 100 mg/dL, and triglycerides < 500 mg/dL were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam (3.75 g/d) or placebo. The primary end point was percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 16 with last observation carried forward. Secondary end points included change in FPG, hemoglobin A1c (A1C), and 2-hour post-OGTT glucose level from baseline to week 16 and attainment of LDL-C and FPG targets.ResultsIn total, 216 patients were randomized (colesevelam, 108; placebo, 108). In comparison with placebo, colesevelam significantly reduced LDL-C (mean treatment difference, -15.6%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-9.1%), total cholesterol (-7.2%), apolipoprotein B (-8.1%) (P < .001 for all the foregoing), FPG (median, -2.0 mg/dL; P = .02), and A1C (mean, -0.10%; P = .02). Colesevelam did not significantly change 2-hour post-OGTT glucose (-1.9 mg/dL; P = .75) or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.5%; P = .80). In addition, colesevelam significantly increased triglyceride levels relative to placebo (median, 14.3%; P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving target levels with colesevelam versus placebo, respectively, was as follows: LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (29% versus 11%; P < .001), A1C < 6.0% (37% versus 25%; P = .05), FPG < 110 mg/dL (48% versus 56%; P = .97), and normalization of glucose (FPG < 100 mg/dL [40% versus 23%; P = .06]). Colesevelam had a weight-neutral effect and was well tolerated.ConclusionColesevelam is an option for managing the lipid profile and normalizing glucose levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia and prediabetes. Further study is warranted to determine whether colesevelam slows or prevents progression of prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:617-628)     

Concomitant Oral Antihyperglycemic Agent Use and Associated Treatment Outcomes After Initiation of Insulin Therapy

ObjectiveTo compare outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin lispro mix 75/25 (75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% lispro) or insulin glargine therapy, stratified by baseline oral antihyperglycemic agent (OHA) use.MethodsWe performed a post hoc analysis of 6-month data from the DURABLE clinical trial, which enrolled patients with hemoglobin A_1c (A1C) levels > 7.0% treated with 2 or more OHAs (metformin, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinedione), and randomly assigned them to treatment with twice-daily insulin lispro 75/25 or oncedaily glargine.ResultsIn both insulin treatment groups, metformin/ thiazolidinedione-treated patients had significantly greater improvement in A1C levels (-2.19% to -2.36%), lower end point A1C values, and lower rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia in comparison with metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients (all P < .05). Patients treated with sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione or metformin/sulfonylurea/thiazolidinedione did not differ significantly from metformin/sulfonylurea-treated patients in A1C change (-1.56% to -1.84%) or rates of occurrence of hypoglycemia.ConclusionIn these post hoc analyses, patients with type 2 diabetes initiating premixed or basal insulin therapy and treated concomitantly with the OHA combination of metformin/thiazolidinedione at baseline demonstrated significantly greater A1C improvement with less hypoglycemia in comparison with patients treated with metformin/ sulfonylurea. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:563-567)     

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)