Mothers after Gestational Diabetes in Australia (MAGDA): A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Postnatal Diabetes Prevention Program

BackgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an increasingly prevalent risk factor for type 2 diabetes. We evaluated the effectiveness of a group-based lifestyle modification program in mothers with prior GDM within their first postnatal year.ConclusionsAlthough a 1-kg weight difference has the potential to be significant for reducing diabetes risk, the level of engagement during the first postnatal year was low. Further research is needed to improve engagement, including participant involvement in study design; it is potentially more effective to implement annual diabetes screening until women develop prediabetes before offering an intervention.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000338066     

Novel Gut-Based Pharmacology of Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Metformin, a biguanide derivate, has pleiotropic effects beyond glucose reduction, including improvement of lipid profiles and lowering microvascular and macrovascular complications associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). These effects have been ascribed to adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) activation in the liver and skeletal muscle. However, metformin effects are not attenuated when AMPK is knocked out and intravenous metformin is less effective than oral medication, raising the possibility of important gut pharmacology. We hypothesized that the pharmacology of metformin includes alteration of bile acid recirculation and gut microbiota resulting in enhanced enteroendocrine hormone secretion. In this study we evaluated T2DM subjects on and off metformin monotherapy to characterize the gut-based mechanisms of metformin. Subjects were studied at 4 time points: (i) at baseline on metformin, (ii) 7 days after stopping metformin, (iii) when fasting blood glucose (FBG) had risen by 25% after stopping metformin, and (iv) when FBG returned to baseline levels after restarting the metformin. At these timepoints we profiled glucose, insulin, gut hormones (glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), peptide tyrosine-tyrosine (PYY) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) and bile acids in blood, as well as duodenal and faecal bile acids and gut microbiota. We found that metformin withdrawal was associated with a reduction of active and total GLP-1 and elevation of serum bile acids, especially cholic acid and its conjugates. These effects reversed when metformin was restarted. Effects on circulating PYY were more modest, while GIP changes were negligible. Microbiota abundance of the phylum Firmicutes was positively correlated with changes in cholic acid and conjugates, while Bacteroidetes abundance was negatively correlated. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes representation were also correlated with levels of serum PYY. Our study suggests that metformin has complex effects due to gut-based pharmacology which might provide insights into novel therapeutic approaches to treat T2DM and associated metabolic diseases.

Trial Registration:

www.ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01357876","term_id":"NCT01357876"}}NCT01357876     

Supported Telemonitoring and Glycemic Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes: The Telescot Diabetes Pragmatic Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundSelf-monitoring of blood glucose among people with type 2 diabetes not treated with insulin does not appear to be effective in improving glycemic control. We investigated whether health professional review of telemetrically transmitted self-monitored glucose results in improved glycemic control in people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.ConclusionsSupported telemonitoring resulted in clinically important improvements in control of glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes in family practice. Current Controlled Trials, registration number ISRCTN71674628.

Trial Registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 71674628     

The Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Herbal Medicine Jinlida as Add-On Medication in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Ineffectively Managed by Metformin Monotherapy: A Double-Blind,Randomized, Placebo-Controlled,Multicenter Trial

Background

Metformin plays an important role in diabetes treatment. Studies have shown that the combined use of oral hypoglycemic medications is more effective than metformin monotherapy. In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we evaluated whether Jinlida, a Chinese herbal medicine, enhances the glycemic control of metformin in type 2 diabetes patients whose HbA1c was ineffectively controlled with metformin alone.

Methods

A total of 186 diabetes patients were enrolled in this double-Blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either Jinlida (9 g) or the placebo TID for 12 consecutive weeks. All subjects in both groups also continuously received their metformin without any dose change. During this 12-week period, the HbA1c, FPG, 2h PG, body weight, BMI were assessed. HOMA insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and β-cell function (HOMA- β) were also evaluated.

Results

At week 12, compared to the HbA1c level from week 0, the level of the Jinlida group was reduced by 0.92 ± 1.09% and that of the placebo group was reduced by 0.53 ± 0.94%. The 95% CI was 0.69 - 1.14 for the Jinlida group vs. 0.34 - 0.72 for the placebo group. There was a very significant HbA1c reduction between the two groups after 12 weeks (p < 0.01). Both FG and 2h PG levels of the Jinlida group and placebo group were reduced from week 0. There were a very significant FG and 2h PG level reductions between the two groups after 12 weeks (both p < 0.01). The Jinlida group also showed improved β-cell function with a HOMA-β increase (p < 0.05). No statistical significance was observed in the body weight and BMI changes. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Jinlida significantly enhanced the hypoglycemic action of metformin when the drug was used alone. This Chinese herbal medicine may have a clinical value as an add-on medication to metformin monotherapy.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register ChiCTR-TRC-13003159     

Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Diabetes: A Double-Blind,Randomised, Controlled Trial

Background

Treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine has a long history. The aim of this study is to establish the safety and efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine combined with glibenclamide to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

In a controlled, double blind, multicentre non-inferiority trial, 800 patients with unsatisfactory glycemic control (fasting glucose 7–13 mmol/L and HbA1c 7–11%) were randomly assigned to receive Xiaoke Pill, a compound of Chinese herbs combined with glibenclamide, or Glibenclamide in two study groups – drug naive group, and patients previously treated with metformin monotherapy (metformin group). Outcome measures at 48 weeks were the incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, mean difference in HbA1c, and proportion of patients with HbA1c<6.5%.

Findings

In drug naïve group, the total hypoglycemia rate and the mild hypoglycemic episode in the Xiaoke Pill arm were 38% (p = 0.024) and 41% (p = 0.002) less compared to Glibenclamide arm; in Metformin group, the average annual rate of hypoglycemia was 62% lower in Xiaoke Pill arm (p = 0.003). Respective mean changes in HbA1c from baseline were −0.70% and −0.66% for Xiaoke Pill and Glibenclamide, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of −0.04% (−0.20, 0.12) in the drug naïve group, and those in metformin group were −0.45% and −0.59%, 0.14% (−0.12, 0.39) respectively. The respective proportions of patients with a HbA1c level <6.5% were 26.6% and 23.4% in the drug naïve group and 20.1% and 18.9% in the metformin group.

Interpretation

In patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control, treatment with Xiaoke Pill led to significant reduction in risk of hypoglycemia and similar improvements in glycemic control after 48 weeks compared to Glibenclamide.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR-TRC-08000074     

Automated Insulin Delivery Systems as a Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review

ObjectiveApproximately 6.3% of the worldwide population has type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the number of people requiring insulin is increasing. Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems integrate continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and continuous glucose monitoring with a predictive control algorithm to provide more physiologic glycemic control. Personalized glycemic targets are recommended in T2DM owing to the heterogeneity of the disease. Based on the success of hybrid closed-loop systems in improving glycemic control and safety in type 1 diabetes mellitus, there has been further interest in the use of these systems in people with T2DM.MethodsWe performed a review of AID systems with a focus on the T2DM population.ResultsIn 5 randomized controlled trials, AID systems improve time in range and reduce glycemic variability, without increasing insulin requirements or the risk of hypoglycemia.ConclusionAID systems in T2DM are safe and effective in hospitalized and closely monitored settings. Home studies of longer duration are required to assess for long-term benefit and identify target populations of benefit.     

A Randomized,Double-Blind,Placebo-Controlled Trial of Adjunctive Metformin Therapy in Overweight/Obese Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Context

Insulin resistance has been proposed as one of the causes of poor glycemic control in overweight/obese youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the role of adjunctive metformin, an insulin sensitizer, on glycemic control in these patients is unclear.

Objective

To compare the effect of metformin vs. placebo on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), total daily dose (TDD) of insulin, and other parameters in overweight/obese youth with T1D.

Hypothesis

Adjunctive metformin therapy will improve glycemic control in overweight/obese youth with T1D.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A 9-mo randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of metformin and placebo in 28 subjects (13m/15f) of ages 10-20years (y), with HbA1c >8% (64 mmol/mol), BMI >85%, and T1D > 12 months was conducted at a university outpatient facility. The metformin group consisted of 15 subjects (8 m/ 7f), of age 15.0 ± 2.5 y; while the control group was made up of 13 subjects (5m/ 8f), of age 14.5 ± 3.1y. All participants employed a self-directed treat-to-target insulin regimen based on a titration algorithm of (-2)-0-(+2) units to adjust their long-acting insulin dose every 3rd day from -3 mo through +9 mo to maintain fasting plasma glucose (FPG) between 90–120 mg/dL (5.0–6.7 mmol/L). Pubertal maturation was determined by Tanner stage.

Results

Over the course of the 9 months of observation, the between-treatment differences in HbA1c of 0.4% (9.85% [8.82 to 10.88] for placebo versus 9.46% [8.47 to 10.46] for metformin) was not significant (p = 0.903). There were non-significant reduction in fasting plasma glucose (189.4 mg/dL [133.2 to 245.6] for placebo versus 170.5 mg/dL [114.3 to 226.7] for metformin), (p = 0.927); total daily dose (TDD) of short-acting insulin per kg body weight/day(p = 0.936); and the TDD of long-acting insulin per kg body weight per day (1.15 units/kg/day [0.89 to 1.41] for placebo versus 0.90 units/kg/day [0.64 to 1.16] for metformin) (p = 0.221). There was no difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia between the groups.

Conclusions

This 9-month RCT of adjunctive metformin therapy in overweight and obese youth with T1D resulted in a 0.4% lower HbA1c value in the metformin group compared to the placebo group.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01334125     

Impact of Baseline BMI on Glycemic Control and Weight Change with Metformin Monotherapy in Chinese Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Phase IV Open-Label Trial

Background

Differences exist between treatment recommendations regarding the choice of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes patients according to body mass index (BMI). This study compared the efficacy of metformin monotherapy among normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Methods

In this prospective, multicenter, open-label study in China, patients aged 23–77 years were enrolled 1∶1:1 according to baseline BMI: normal-weight (BMI 18.5−23.9 kg/m²; n = 125); overweight (BMI 24.0−27.9 kg/m²; n = 122) or obese (BMI ≥28 kg/m²; n = 124). Extended-release metformin was administered for 16 weeks (500 mg/day, up-titrated weekly to a maximum 2,000 mg/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was the effect of baseline BMI on glycemic control with metformin monotherapy, measured as the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) at week 16 compared among BMI groups using ANCOVA. Other endpoints included comparisons of metformin’s effects on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid levels and body weight.

Results

Mean HbA_1c decreases at week 16, adjusted for baseline values, were –1.84%, –1.78% and –1.78% in normal-weight, overweight and obese patients, (P = 0.664); body weight decreased by 2.4%, 3.9% and 3.5%, respectively. FPG levels decreased similarly over time in all BMI groups (P = 0.461) and changes from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) did not differ significantly among BMI groups at week 16 (P = 0.143 and 0.451, respectively).

Conclusions

Baseline BMI had no impact on glycemic control, weight change or other efficacy measures with metformin monotherapy. These data suggest that normal-weight type 2 diabetes patients would derive the same benefits from first-line treatment with metformin as overweight and obese patients, and are not at increased risk of excess weight loss.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00778622","term_id":"NCT00778622"}}NCT00778622     

Inhibition of Renal Glucose Reabsorption: A Novel Strategy for Achieving Glucose Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo review the renal handling of glucose and the role of inhibition of a sodium-glucose transporter (SGLT2) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsWe review the published data about (1) the filtration and reabsorption of glucose by the kidneys in normal subjects and patients with diabetes; (2) the deleterious effects of long-term elevation of plasma glucose levels on muscle and hepatic insulin sensitivity and beta cell function (that is, glucotoxicity); (3) the effect of inhibiting the SGLT2 transporter on the induction of glycosuria, glycemic control, insulin resistance, and beta cell dysfunction in animals and humans with diabetes; and (4) the safety of SGLT2 inhibition as a therapeutic modality to treat human T2DM.ResultsStudies in animal models of diabetes document the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitors in inducing glycosuria, decreasing both fasting and postprandial glucose levels, augmenting beta cell function, and enhancing hepatic and muscle insulin sensitivity. In human T2DM, short-term studies with dapagliflozin (12 weeks) and sergliflozin (2 weeks) have confirmed the efficacy of these agents in improving glycemic control. Excessive urinary electrolyte or water loss, plasma electrolyte disturbances, and hypoglycemia were not observed.ConclusionSGLT2 inhibitors represent a promising approach to the treatment of T2DM. They have the potential to be used as monotherapy, as well as in combination with all approved antidiabetic agents. Because their mechanism of action is independent of the severity of beta cell dysfunction or insulin resistance, efficacy should not decline with progressive beta cell failure or in the presence of severe insulin resistance. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:782-790)     

Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogues in Basal-Bolus Regimens in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare rapid-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulin in terms of hemoglobin A_1c, hypoglycemia, and insulin dose when used in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.MethodsMEDLINE and congress proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing pran- dial insulins in a basal-bolus regimen in adults or children/ adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Studies in pregnancy, ob- servational studies, studies that compared premixed insulin or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion/insulin pumps, and studies where the basal insulin was also changed were excluded. Only studies reporting baseline-endpoint change in insulin dose, or baseline and/or endpoint values, were included.ResultsTwenty-eight studies were identified (insulin glulisine, 4; insulin aspart, 7; insulin lispro, 17). Twenty- five studies compared a rapid-acting insulin analogue with regular human insulin, and 3 trials compared 2 rapid-acting insulin analogues. Overall, rapid-acting insulin analogues in a basal-bolus regimen provided similar or greater im- provements in glycemic control than regular human insulin at similar insulin doses, as well as a lower incidence of hypoglycemia.ConclusionsResults of the studies identified in this literature review indicate that a basal-bolus regimen with prandial rapid-acting insulin analogue provides advan- tages over basal-bolus regimens using prandial regular hu- man insulin, providing improvements in glycemic control comparable to those obtained with regular human insulin, as well as a lower incidence of hypoglycemia. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:486-505)     

Improved Glycemic Control with Insulin Glargine Versus Pioglitazone as Add-On Therapy to Sulfonylurea or Metformin in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo compare glycemic control with add-on insulin glargine versus pioglitazone treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsThis 48-week, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label study randomized 389 adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin A1c [A1C], 8.0% to 12.0%), despite ≥ 3 months of sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy, to receive add-on therapy with insulin glargine or pioglitazone. Outcomes included A1C change from baseline to end point (primary), percentage of patients achieving A1C levels ≤ 7.0%, and changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, weight, and serum lipids. The safety analysis included incidence of adverse events and rates of hypoglycemia.ResultsAt end point, insulin glargine yielded a significantly greater reduction in A1C in comparison with pioglitazone (-2.48% versus -1.86%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -0.93 to -0.31; P = .0001, 48-week modified intent-to-treat population). Insulin glargine also yielded significantly greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose at all time points (end point difference, -34.9 mg/ dL; 95% confidence interval, -47.6 to -22.2; P < .0001). In comparison with pioglitazone, insulin glargine resulted in a lower overall incidence of possibly related treatmentemergent adverse events (12.0% versus 20.7%) and fewer study discontinuations (2.2% versus 9.1%), but a higher rate (per patient-year) of confirmed clinically relevant hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL and all severe hypoglycemia) (4.97 versus 1.04; P <.0001) and severe hypoglycemia (0.07 versus 0.01; P = .0309). Weight and body mass index changes were similar between the 2 treatment groups.ConclusionThe addition of insulin glargine early in the diabetes treatment paradigm in patients for whom sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy had failed resulted in significantly greater improvements in glycemic control in comparison with the addition of pioglitazone. Although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in patients with insulin glargine therapy, hypoglycemic events occurred in < 5% of patients in the insulin glargine treatment group. (Endocr Pract. 2010;16:588-599)     

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)     

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Antidiabetic Drug Regimens Added to Metformin Monotherapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

When first line therapy with metformin is insufficient for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the optimal adjunctive therapy is unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidiabetic agents in patients with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin alone.

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, regulatory websites was performed. We included randomized controlled trials of 3–12 months duration, evaluating Food and Drug Administration or European Union approved agents (noninsulin and long acting, once daily basal insulins) in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg daily or maximally tolerated dose for ≥4 weeks). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to compare the weighted mean difference for changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and the risk of developing hypoglycemia, urinary (UTI) and genital tract infection (GTI).

Results

Sixty-two trials evaluating 25 agents were included. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c vs. placebo; albeit not to the same extent (range, 0.43% for miglitol to 1.29% for glibenclamide). Glargine, sulfonylureas (SUs) and nateglinide were associated with increased hypoglycemia risk vs. placebo (range, 4.00–11.67). Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, miglitol and empagliflozin/linagliptin significantly reduced BW (range, 1.15–2.26kg) whereas SUs, thiazolindinediones, glargine and alogliptin/pioglitazone caused weight gain (range, 1.19–2.44kg). SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin/linagliptin, liraglutide and sitagliptin decreased SBP (range, 1.88–5.43mmHg). No therapy increased UTI risk vs. placebo; however, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of GTI (range, 2.16–8.03).

Conclusions

Adding different AHAs to metformin was associated with varying effects on HbA1c, BW, SBP, hypoglycemia, UTI and GTI which should impact clinician choice when selecting adjunctive therapy.     

Dose- and Time-Dependent Association of Smoking and Its Cessation with Glycemic Control and Insulin Resistance in Male Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Fukuoka Diabetes Registry

Objective

Cigarette smoking is an important modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. However, the effect of smoking and its cessation on glycemic control in diabetic patients has not been fully examined yet. The aim of the present study was to examine the association of smoking status with glycemic level and markers of insulin resistance and secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Research Design and Methods

A total of 2,490 Japanese male patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus aged ≥20 years were divided according to smoking status, amount of cigarettes smoked and years since quitting. The associations with glycemic level and markers of insulin resistance and secretion were examined cross-sectionally.

Results

HbA_1c levels increased progressively with increases in both number of cigarettes per day and pack-years of cigarette smoking compared with never smokers (P for trend = 0.001 and <0.001, respectively), whereas fasting plasma glucose did not. On the other hand, HbA_1c, but not fasting plasma glucose, decreased linearly with increase in years after smoking cessation (P for trend <0.001). These graded relationships persisted significantly after controlling for the confounders, including total energy intake, current drinking, regular exercise, depressive symptoms, and BMI. In addition, a homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein also showed similar trends.

Conclusions

Smoking and its cessation showed dose- and time-dependent relationship with glycemic control and insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. These findings may highlight the importance of smoking cessation in the clinical management of diabetes mellitus.     

Gut Hormone Pharmacology of a Novel GPR119 Agonist (GSK1292263), Metformin,and Sitagliptin in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results from Two Randomized Studies

GPR119 receptor agonists improve glucose metabolism and alter gut hormone profiles in animal models and healthy subjects. We therefore investigated the pharmacology of GSK1292263 (GSK263), a selective GPR119 agonist, in two randomized, placebo-controlled studies that enrolled subjects with type 2 diabetes. Study 1 had drug-naive subjects or subjects who had stopped their diabetic medications, and Study 2 had subjects taking metformin. GSK263 was administered as single (25–800 mg; n = 45) or multiple doses (100–600 mg/day for 14 days; n = 96). Placebo and sitagliptin 100 mg/day were administered as comparators. In Study 1, sitagliptin was co-administered with GSK263 or placebo on Day 14 of dosing. Oral glucose and meal challenges were used to assess the effects on plasma glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, peptide tyrosine-tyrosine (PYY), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP). After 13 days of dosing, GSK263 significantly increased plasma total PYY levels by ∼five-fold compared with placebo, reaching peak concentrations of ∼50 pM after each of the three standardized meals with the 300 mg BID dose. Co-dosing of GSK263 and metformin augmented peak concentrations to ∼100 pM at lunchtime. GSK263 had no effect on active or total GLP-1 or GIP, but co-dosing with metformin increased post-prandial total GLP-1, with little effect on active GLP-1. Sitagliptin increased active GLP-1, but caused a profound suppression of total PYY, GLP-1, and GIP when dosed alone or with GSK263. This suppression of peptides was reduced when sitagliptin was co-dosed with metformin. GSK263 had no significant effect on circulating glucose, insulin, C-peptide or glucagon levels. We conclude that GSK263 did not improve glucose control in type 2 diabetics, but it had profound effects on circulating PYY. The gut hormone effects of this GPR119 agonist were modulated when co-dosed with metformin and sitagliptin. Metformin may modulate negative feedback loops controlling the secretion of enteroendocrine peptides.

Trial Registration:

Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01119846","term_id":"NCT01119846"}}NCT01119846 Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01128621","term_id":"NCT01128621"}}NCT01128621     

Comparison of 2 Intensification Regimens with Rapid-Acting Insulin Aspart in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled by Once-Daily Insulin Detemir and Oral Antidiabetes Drugs: The Step-Wise Randomized Study

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of 2 intensification strategies for stepwise addition of prandial insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin detemir.MethodsThis randomized, controlled, parallel-group, open-label, 48-week trial compared the stepwise addition of insulin aspart to either the largest meal (titration based on premeal glucose values [SimpleSTEP]) or to the meal with the largest prandial glucose increment (titration based on postmeal glucose values [ExtraSTEP]) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin and oral antidiabetes drugs. After 12 weeks of basal insulin detemir dosage optimization, participants with a hemoglobin A₁ level of 7% or greater entered three 12-week treatment periods with stepwise addition of a first insulin aspart bolus, then a second, and then a third, if hemoglobin A_1c remained at 7% or greater after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. Endpoints included hemoglobin A_1c (primary endpoint), fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, adverse events, and hypoglycemia.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment with insulin aspart in the SimpleSTEP (n = 150) and ExtraSTEP (n = 146) groups. Hemoglobin A_1c decreased by approximately 1.2% in both groups, to 7.5 ± 1.1% (SimpleSTEP) and 7.7 ± 1.2% (ExtraSTEP) at end of trial (estimated treatment difference, SimpleSTEP ExtraSTEP: -0.06% [95% confidence interval, -0.29 to 0.17]). Self-measured plasma glucose levels decreased with both regimens. At trial end, approximately 75% of patients in each group were using 3 prandial injections. The frequency of adverse events and hypoglycemia was low and similar between groups.ConclusionThe SimpleSTEP and ExtraSTEP strategies for stepwise addition of insulin aspart to 1 or more meals were equally effective at intensifying therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:727-736)     

A Stepwise Approach to Insulin Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Basal Insulin Treatment Failure

ObjectiveTo determine whether 1 or 2 preprandial injections before the meals of greatest glycemic impact can be as effective as 3 preprandial injections in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and basal insulin treatment failure.MethodsThis was an open-label, parallel-group, 1:1:1 randomized study of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus on oral antidiabetic drugs with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels of 8.0% or greater. After a 14week run-in with insulin glargine, patients with an A1C level greater than 7.0% were randomly assigned to 1, 2, or 3 time(s) daily insulin glulisine for 24 weeks. Changes in A1C from randomization to study end; percentage of patients achieving an A1C level less than 7.0%; changes in A1C, fasting glucose concentrations, and weight at individual study points; and safety (adverse events and hypoglycemia) were assessed throughout the study.ResultsThree hundred forty-three of 631 patients (54%) completing the run-in phase with insulin glargine were randomly assigned to treatment arms. During the randomization phase, A1C reductions with insulin glulisine once or twice daily were noninferior to insulin glulisine 3 times daily (confidence intervals: -0.39 to 0.36 and -0.30 to 0.43; P > .5 for both). However, more patients met the target A1C with 3 preprandial injections (46 [46%]) than with 2 injections (34 [33%]) or 1 injection (30 [30%]). Severe hypoglycemia occurred in twice as many patients receiving 3 preprandial injections (16%) compared with those receiving 2 injections (8%) and 1 injection (7%), but these differences did not reach significance.ConclusionThis study provides evidence that initiation of prandial insulin in a simplified stepwise approach is an effective alternative to the current routine 3 preprandial injection basal-bolus approach. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:395-403)     

Efficacy and Safety of Lobeglitazone Monotherapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus over 24-Weeks: A Multicenter,Randomized, Double-Blind,Parallel-Group,Placebo Controlled Trial

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the glucose-lowering and lipid-modifying effects, and safety profile of lobeglitazone, a novel peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- γ agonist, compared to placebo as a monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Research Design and Methods

In this 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo controlled study, 173 patients were randomly assigned (a 2∶1 ratio) to lobeglitazone 0.5 mg (n = 115) or matching placebo (n = 58) orally once daily. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to the end of treatment. The secondary endpoints included various glycemic parameters, lipid parameters and safety profile (ClinicalTrials.gov number {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01001611","term_id":"NCT01001611"}}NCT01001611).

Results

At 24 weeks, a significant reduction in HbA1c was observed with lobeglitazone versus placebo (−0.44% vs 0.16%, mean difference −0.6%, p<0.0001). The goal of HbA1c <7% was achieved significantly more in the lobeglitazone group compared to the placebo group (44% vs 12%, p<0.0001). Markers of insulin resistance were also improved in the lobeglitazone group. In addition, lobeglitazone treatment significantly improved triglycerides, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, small dense low density lipoprotein cholesterol, free fatty acid, and apolipoprotein-B/CIII compared to placebo (p<0.01, respectively). More weight gain was observed in the lobeglitazone group than the placebo group (0.89 kg vs – 0.63 kg, mean difference 1.52 kg, p<0.0001). The safety profile was comparable between the two groups and lobeglitazone was well tolerated.

Conclusions

Lobeglitazone 0.5 mg showed a favorable balance in the efficacy and safety profile. The results support a potential role of lobeglitazone in treating type 2 diabetes.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01001611","term_id":"NCT01001611"}}NCT01001611     

De-Intensification of Diabetes Treatment in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Objective: De-intensification of diabetes treatment is recommended in elderly patients with tight glycemic control at high risk of hypoglycemia. However, rates of de-intensification in endocrine practice are unknown. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the rate of de-intensification of antidiabetic treatment in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and tight glycemic control.Methods: All patients with ≥2 clinic visits over a 1-year period at a major academic diabetes center were included. De-intensification of diabetes treatment was defined as a decrease or discontinuation of any antidiabetic drug without adding another drug, or a reduction in the total daily dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea drug with or without adding a drug without risk of hypoglycemia.Results: Out of 3,186 unique patients, 492 were ≥65 years old with T2DM and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <7.5% (<58 mmol/mol). We found 308 patients treated with a sulfonylurea drug or insulin, 102 of whom had hypoglycemia as per physician note. Among these 102 patients, 38 (37%) were advised to de-intensify therapy. In a subgroup analysis of patients ≥75 years old with HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol), we found that out of 23 patients treated with a sulfonylurea drug or insulin and reporting hypoglycemia, 11 (43%) were advised de-intensification of therapy. There were no significant predictors of de-intensification of treatment.Conclusion: Our study suggests that de-intensification of antidiabetic medications is uncommon in elderly patients with T2DM. Strategies may need to be developed to prevent the potential harm of overtreatment in this population.Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus; UKPDS = United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study     

达格列净联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效及对糖脂代谢的影响

目的:探讨达格列净联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效及对糖脂代谢的影响。方法:选择2018年1月-2020年1月在我院接受治疗的120例2型糖尿病患者,采用抽签法分为观察组(n=61)和对照组(n=59)。对照组给予二甲双胍治疗,观察组在对照组的基础上给予达格列净治疗。比较两组患者的临床疗效、治疗前后血清空腹血糖(FBG)、空腹胰岛素(FINS)、糖化血红蛋白(Hb Alc)、总胆固醇(TC)、三酰甘油(TG)、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)水平、胰岛素β细胞功能指数(HOMA-β)、胰岛素抵抗指数(HOMA-IR)的变化情况及不良反应的发生情况。结果:治疗后,观察组和对照组总有效率分别为93.62%,74.47%,观察组显著高于对照组(P0.05);两组FBG、FINS、HbAlc、TC、TG、LDL-C水平及HOMA-IR均较治疗前显著降低,且观察组上述指标均明显低于对照组(P0.05),两组HDL-C水平和HOMA-β均较治疗前显著升高,且观察组显著高于对照组(P0.05);两组不良反应总发生率为6.56%、8.47%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:达格列净联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的效果显著优于单用二甲双胍治疗,其可有效改善患者糖脂代谢水平,且不会增加不良反应。