Nateglinide alone and in combination with metformin improves glycemic control by reducing mealtime glucose levels in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of nateglinide and metformin alone and in combination in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled by diet, focusing on changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and mealtime glucose excursions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind study, patients with an HbA1c level between 6.8 and 11.0% during a 4-week placebo run-in received 24 weeks' treatment with 120 mg nateglinide before meals (n = 179), 500 mg metformin three times a day (n = 178), combination therapy (n = 172), or placebo (n = 172). HbA1c and FPG were evaluated regularly, and plasma glucose levels were determined after Sustacal challenge at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Hypoglycemia and other adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: At study end point, HbA1c was reduced from baseline with nateglinide and metformin but was increased with placebo (-0.5, -0.8, and +0.5%, respectively; P < or = 0.0001). Changes in FPG followed the same pattern (-0.7, -1.6, and +0.4 mmol/l; P < or = 0.0001). Combination therapy was additive (HbA1c -1.4% and FPG -2.4 mmol/l; P < or = 0.01 vs. monotherapy). After Sustacal challenge, there was a greater reduction in mealtime glucose with nateglinide monotherapy compared with metformin monotherapy or placebo (adjusted area under the curve [AUC]0-130 min -2.1, -1.1, and -0.6 mmol x h(-1) x l(-1); p < or = 0.0001). An even greater effect was observed with combination therapy (AUC0-130 min -2.5 mmol x h(-1) x l(-1); P < or = 0.0001 vs. metformin and placebo). All regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Nateglinide and metformin monotherapy each improved overall glycemic control but by different mechanisms. Nateglinide decreased mealtime glucose excursions, whereas metformin primarily affected FPG. In combination, nateglinide and metformin had complementary effects, improving HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial hyperglycemia.     

Nateglinide--current and future role in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus should aim to control not only fasting, but also postprandial glucose levels. Nateglinide, a d-phenylalanine derivative, restores postprandial early phase insulin secretion in a transient and glucose-sensitive manner without affecting basal insulin levels. As nateglinide is administered immediately before meals it provides greater lifestyle flexibility than agents that require patients to eat to avoid hypoglycemic events (e.g. long-acting sulfonylureas). In randomised, double-blind trials in patients with type 2 diabetes, nateglinide monotherapy (mealtime treatment of 120 mg three times daily) significantly improved long-term glycaemic control by significantly reducing glyated haemoglobin (HbA 1c) and preventing mealtime glucose spikes. The combination of nateglinide with insulin-sensitising agents, for example, metformin and thiazolidinediones, addresses the dual defects of loss of insulin secretion and insulin resistance to provide optimal management of type 2 diabetes, and more patients achieve HbA 1c goal with nateglinide combination therapy rather than with monotherapy with other oral agents. Nateglinide also restores early insulin secretion and reduces postprandial hyperglycaemia in prediabetic subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and appears similarly effective in elderly and non-elderly populations with type 2 diabetes. It has an excellent safety and tolerability profile, with a low propensity to cause hypoglycaemia due to its transient, selective effect on early phase insulin secretion. Nateglinide as monotherapy or combination therapy is an effective option to reduce mealtime glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes. The results of ongoing research into its potential role in delaying progression to overt diabetes, and protecting against cardiovascular events, in prediabetic patients with IGT are awaited.     

Rapid and short-acting mealtime insulin secretion with nateglinide controls both prandial and mean glycemia

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of four fixed doses of nateglinide compared with placebo in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with focus on the prandial state. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter study was conducted in 289 patients who received either nateglinide at doses of 30 mg (n = 51), 60 mg (n = 58), 120 mg (n = 63), or 180 mg (n = 57) or placebo (n = 60) before three main meals for 12 weeks. Levels of HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fructosamine, and plasma lipids were measured at predetermined intervals, and the effects of nateglinide on prandial glucose insulin, C-peptide, and triglyceride levels were measured after a liquid standard meal (Sustacal; Mead Johnson, Evansville, IN). Adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes were recorded. RESULTS: After a liquid meal challenge, nateglinide rapidly increased mealtime insulin levels within 30 min of drug intake and reduced mealtime glucose excursions without affecting triglyceride levels. At study end point, reduction of HbA1c levels was statistically significantly greater with nateglinide at doses of 60, 120, and 180 mg than placebo (-0.45, -0.62, and -0.64%, respectively; P<0.05). The mean level of FPG was significantly reduced versus placebo in the nateglinide 120-mg group only (-1.14 mmol/l P<0.01). Overall, nateglinide was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that nateglinide improves mealtime and mean glycemic control in a dose-dependent manner by restoring early insulin secretion phase. Nateglinide was well tolerated and is suitable for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Repaglinide versus nateglinide monotherapy: a randomized, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE: A randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter 16-week clinical trial compared efficacy and safety of repaglinide monotherapy and nateglinide monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with diet and exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 150) had received treatment with diet and exercise in the previous 3 months with HbA(1c) >7 and < or =12%. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with repaglinide (n = 76) (0.5 mg/meal, maximum dose 4 mg/meal) or nateglinide (n = 74) (60 mg/meal, maximum dose 120 mg/meal) for 16 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy end points were changes in HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values from baseline, respectively. Postprandial glucose, insulin, and glucagon were assessed after a liquid test meal (baseline, week 16). Safety was assessed by incidence of adverse events or hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) values were similar in both groups (8.9%). Final HbA(1c) values were lower for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (7.3 vs. 7.9%). Mean final reductions of HbA(1c) were significantly greater for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (-1.57 vs. -1.04%; P = 0.002). Mean changes in FPG also demonstrated significantly greater efficacy for repaglinide than nateglinide (-57 vs. -18 mg/dl; P < 0.001). HbA(1c) values <7% were achieved by 54% of repaglinide-treated patients versus 42% for nateglinide. Median final doses were 6.0 mg/day for repaglinide and 360 mg/day for nateglinide. There were 7% of subjects treated with repaglinide (five subjects with one episode each) who had minor hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) versus 0 patients for nateglinide. Mean weight gain at the end of the study was 1.8 kg in the repaglinide group as compared with 0.7 kg for the nateglinide group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients previously treated with diet and exercise, repaglinide and nateglinide had similar postprandial glycemic effects, but repaglinide monotherapy was significantly more effective than nateglinide monotherapy in reducing HbA(1c) and FPG values after 16 weeks of therapy.     

Control of postprandial hyperglycemia: optimal use of short-acting insulin secretagogues

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the efficacy of acute premeal administration of glipizide versus nateglinide in controlling postprandial hyperglycemia in subjects with non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 20 subjects (10 female, 10 male) with non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes were admitted overnight to the General Clinical Research Center on four occasions. In random order, 10 mg glipizide (30 min premeal), 120 mg nateglinide (15 min premeal), 10 mg glipizide plus nateglinide (30 and 15 min premeal, respectively), or placebo pills (30 and 15 min premeal) were administered in a double-blind fashion before a standardized breakfast. Blood was drawn for analysis of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide at -0.05, 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 h relative to the meal. RESULTS: The subjects were aged 56 +/- 2 years and were moderately obese (BMI 31 +/- 1 kg/m(2)), with a mean HbA(1c) of 7.4 +/- 0.4%. The peak postprandial glucose excursion above baseline was higher with placebo (6.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) than glipizide (4.3 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.002), nateglinide (4.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l, P = 0.001), or glipizide plus nateglinide (4.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P = 0.001). The area under the curve for the glucose excursion above baseline was also higher with placebo (14.1 +/- 1.8 mmol/h. l) compared with glipizide (6.9 +/- 2.4 mmol/h. l, P = 0.002), nateglinide (9.7 +/- 2 mmol/h. l, P = 0.004), or glipizide plus nateglinide (5.6 +/- 2.2 mmol/h. l, P < 0.001). Peak and integrated glucose excursions did not differ significantly between glipizide and nateglinide. However, by 4 h postmeal, plasma glucose levels were significantly higher with nateglinide (9 +/- 0.9 mmol/l) compared with the premeal baseline (7.8 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.04) and compared with the 4-h postprandial glucose level after administration of glipizide (7.6 +/- 0.6 mmol/l, P = 0.02). Integrated postprandial insulin levels were higher with glipizide (1,556 +/- 349 pmol/h. l) than nateglinide (1,364 +/- 231 pmol/h. l; P = 0.03). Early insulin secretion, as measured by insulin levels at 30 min postmeal, did not differ between glipizide and nateglinide. CONCLUSIONS: Acute premeal administration of nateglinide or glipizide has equal efficacy in controlling postbreakfast hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes when each drug is administered at the optimum time before the meal. Glipizide causes a more pronounced and sustained postmeal insulin secretory response compared with nateglinide. Glipizide facilitates the return to near-fasting glucose levels at 4 h postmeal, but with the possible risk of increased frequency of postmeal hypoglycemia in drug-naive patients. The clinical decision to use glipizide versus nateglinide should be based on factors other than the control of postprandial hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes.     

Twelve- and 52-week efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor LAF237 in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 12- and 52-week efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor LAF237 versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes continuing metformin treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 107 patients with type 2 diabetes with a 40-week extension in those completing the core study and agreeing, together with the investigator, to extend treatment to 1 year. Placebo (n=51) or LAF237 (50 mg once daily, n=56) was added to ongoing metformin treatment (1,500-3,000 mg/day). HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were measured periodically, and standardized meal tests were performed at baseline, week 12, and week 52. RESULTS: In patients randomized to LAF237, baseline HbA1c averaged 7.7 +/- 0.1% and decreased at week 12 (Delta=-0.6 +/- 0.1%), whereas HbA1c did not change from a baseline of 7.9 +/- 0.1% in patients given placebo (between-group difference in DeltaHbA1c=-0.7 +/- 0.1%, P <0.0001). Mean prandial glucose and FPG were significantly reduced in patients receiving LAF237 versus placebo by 2.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l (P <0.0001) and 1.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l (P=0.0057), respectively, but plasma insulin levels were not affected. At end point of the extension, the between-group differences in change in mean prandial glucose, insulin, and FPG were -2.4 +/- 0.6 mmol/l (P=0.0001), 40 +/- 16 pmol/l (P=0.0153), and -1.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l (P=0.0312), respectively. HbA1c did not change from week 12 to week 52 in LAF237-treated patients (n=42) but increased in participants given placebo (n=29). The between-group difference in DeltaHbA1c after 1 year was -1.1 +/- 0.2% (P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study demonstrate that LAF237 effectively prevents deterioration of glycemic control when added to metformin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes.     

Improved control of mealtime glucose excursions with coadministration of nateglinide and metformin

OBJECTIVE: Nateglinide, a new short-acting D-phenylalanine derivative for treating type 2 diabetes, reduces mealtime blood glucose excursions by physiologic regulation of insulin secretion. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of nateglinide and metformin in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 12 type 2 diabetic subjects with the following baseline characteristics were enrolled: age, 56 +/- 13 years; BMI, 28.7 +/- 4.5 kg/m2; HbA1c, 8.4 +/- 1.3%; and fasting plasma glucose 13 +/- 2.8 mmol/l. All subjects had been previously treated with glyburide and were switched to metformin monotherapy for 3 weeks before study start. Subjects then randomly received, in combination with 500 mg metformin, either 120 mg nateglinide or placebo before meals for 1 day, followed by the alternate treatment 7 days later. After 1 week of washout from both drugs, subjects received 1 day of open-label nateglinide treatment. Plasma concentrations of glucose, insulin, nateglinide, and metformin were assessed frequently during inpatient periods. RESULTS: Postmeal plasma glucose levels were significantly lower in subjects treated with nateglinide plus metformin than in those treated with either drug alone (P < 0.001), especially after lunch and dinner. Coadministration of nateglinide and metformin did not affect the pharmacokinetics of either drug. All treatments were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nateglinide and metformin was more effective than either treatment alone and did not result in any pharmacokinetic interactions. Coadministration of nateglinide and metformin appears to be an excellent option for treating patients with type 2 diabetes not controlled with monotherapy.     

The synergistic effect of miglitol plus metformin combination therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE--To investigate the efficacy and safety of miglitol in combination with metformin in improving glycemic control in outpatients in whom type 2 diabetes is insufficiently controlled by diet alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 324 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized, after an 8-week placebo run-in period, to treatment with either placebo, miglitol alone, metformin alone, or miglitol plus metformin for 36 weeks. The miglitol was titrated to 100 mg three times a day and metformin was administered at 500 mg three times a day. The primary efficacy criterion was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to the end of treatment. Secondary parameters included changes in fasting and postprandial plasma glucose and insulin levels, serum triglyceride levels, and responder rate. RESULTS--A total of 318 patients were valid for intent-to-treat analysis. A reduction in mean placebo-subtracted HbA(1c) of -1.78% was observed with miglitol plus metformin combination therapy, which was significantly different from treatment with metformin alone (-1.25; P = 0.002). Miglitol plus metformin also resulted in better metabolic control than metformin alone for fasting plasma glucose (-44.8 vs. -20.4 mg/dl; P = 0.0025), 2-h postprandial glucose area under the curve (-59.0 vs. -18.0 mg/dl; P = 0.0001), and responder rate (70.6 vs. 45.52%; P = 0.0014). All therapies were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS--In type 2 diabetic patients, miglitol in combination with metformin gives greater glycemic improvement than metformin monotherapy.     

Effects of metformin and rosiglitazone monotherapy on insulin-mediated hepatic glucose uptake and their relation to visceral fat in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Impaired insulin-mediated hepatic glucose uptake (HGU) has been implicated in the hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetes. We examined the effects of metformin (2 g/day) and rosiglitazone (8 mg/day) monotherapy on HGU and its relation to subcutaneous fat, visceral fat (VF), and whole-body insulin-mediated glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Glucose uptake was measured before and after 26 weeks of treatment using positron emission tomography with [(18)F]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose during euglycemic hyperinsulinemia; fat depots were quantified by magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Fasting plasma glucose levels were significantly decreased after either rosiglitazone (-0.9 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) or metformin treatment (-1.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) in comparison with placebo; only metformin was associated with weight loss (P < 0.02 vs. placebo). When controlling for the latter, the placebo-subtracted change in whole-body glucose uptake averaged -1 +/- 4 micromol x min(-1) x kg(-1) in metformin-treated patients (NS) and +9 +/- 3 micromol x min(-1) x kg(-1) in rosiglitazone-treated patients (P = 0.01). Both rosiglitazone and metformin treatment were associated with an increase in HGU; versus placebo, the change reached statistical significance when controlling for sex (placebo-subtracted values = +0.008 +/- 0.004 micromol x min(-1) x kg(-1) x pmol/l(-1), P < 0.03, for metformin; and +0.007 +/- 0.004, P < 0.07, for rosiglitazone). After treatment with either drug, insulin-mediated VF glucose uptake (VFGU) was higher than with placebo. In the whole dataset, changes in HGU were negatively related to changes in HbA(1c) (r = 0.43, P = 0.01) and positively associated with changes in VFGU (r = 0.48, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that both metformin and rosiglitazone monotherapy increase HGU in type 2 diabetes; direct drug actions, better glycemic control, and enhanced VF insulin sensitivity are likely determinants of this phenomenon.     

Combination therapy with nateglinide and a thiazolidinedione improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of monotherapy using nateglinide and the thiazolidinedione troglitazone with initial combination of the two agents on glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study consisted of a 28-week, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study that included a 4-week, single-blind, placebo, run-in period and a 24-week (shortened to 16 weeks), double-blind, active treatment period. RESULTS: At the 16-week end point, nateglinide 120 mg, troglitazone 600 mg, and the combination of the agents achieved statistically significant decreases in HbA(1c) in comparison with placebo and a baseline HbA(1c) of 8.1-8.4% (P < 0.001). The reductions in HbA(1c) were similar in the nateglinide (0.6%) and troglitazone (0.8%) monotherapy groups. The reduction in HbA(1c) (1.7%) was greatest in the combination group; 79% of patients in the combination group achieved HbA(1c) levels of <7%. The combination group had a higher number of adverse events, primarily due to an increased incidence of mild hypoglycemia in this treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Nateglinide and troglitazone are equally effective in decreasing HbA(1c) levels. However, these reductions from baseline HbA(1c) values of >8% are not adequate to achieve HbA(1c) levels of <7%. In contrast, the combination of nateglinide and of a thiazolidinedione shows an additive effect that is highly effective in reducing HbA(1c) levels to the target of <7% in 66% of patients, from a baseline HbA(1c) that is just above 8%.     

The burden of treatment failure in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: In type 2 diabetes, therapies to maintain blood glucose control usually fail after several years. We estimated the glycemic burden that accumulates from treatment failure and describe the time course and predictors of failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective, population-based study using retrospective observational data. We identified all 7208 complete courses of treatment with nondrug therapy, sulfonylurea monotherapy, metformin monotherapy, and combination oral antihyperglycemic therapy between 1994 and 2002, inclusive, among members of the Kaiser Permanente Northwest Region. We calculated mean cumulative glycemic burden, defined as HbA(1c)-months >8.0 or 7.0% for each treatment. We then measured the likelihood that the next HbA(1c) would exceed 8.0 and 7.0% after HbA(1c) exceeded each of ten hypothetical treatment thresholds. Finally, we estimated multivariate logistic regression models to predict when HbA(1c) would continue to deteriorate. RESULTS: In this well-controlled population, the average patient accumulated nearly 5 HbA(1c)-years of excess glycemic burden >8.0% from diagnosis until starting insulin and about 10 HbA(1c)-years of burden >7.0%. Whenever patients crossed the American Diabetes Association-recommended treatment threshold of 8.0%, their next HbA(1c) result was as likely to be <8.0 as >8.0%. Multivariate prediction models had highly statistically significant coefficients, but predicted <10% of the variation in future HbA(1c) results. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should change glucose-lowering treatments in type 2 diabetes much sooner or use treatments that are less likely to fail. An action point at 7.0% or lower is more likely to prevent additional deterioration than the traditional action point of 8.0%.     

罗格列酮治疗2型糖尿病45例临床观察

目的观察马来酸罗格列酮治疗2型糖尿病（T2DM）前后血清高敏C反应蛋白（hsCRP）的变化，探讨其可能的药物作用。方法86例双胍类和磺脲类药物治疗3个月以上的T2DM病人随机分为罗格列酮组与对照组，进行为期16周的临床观察。结果罗格列酮组治疗前后比较空腹血糖（FPG）、餐后2h血糖（PPG）及糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）均明显下降（P〈0．01），胰岛素抵抗指数（IRI）明显下降（P〈0．05），高密度脂蛋白胆固醇（HDL-C）明显升高（P〈0．01），低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（LDL-C）明显下降（P〈0．01），胆固醇（CH）和甘油三酯（TG）无明显变化，收缩压（SBP）平均下降9．6mmHg（P〈0．01），舒张压（DBP）平均下降6．1mmHg（P〈0．01），体重指数（BMI）无明显变化，hsCRP明显下降（P〈0．01）。而对照组各观察指标无明显变化。结论T2DM患者慢性高血糖状态与炎症关系密切。罗格列酮治疗在改善胰岛素敏感性的同时，还具有抗炎、调脂、降压等作用，长期使用可预防T2DM心血管疾病的发生。     

Pramlintide as an adjunct to insulin therapy improves long-term glycemic and weight control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Mealtime amylin replacement with the human amylin analog pramlintide, as an adjunct to mealtime insulin replacement, reduces postprandial glucose excursions in patients with type 2 diabetes. The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of pramlintide in this patient population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study, 656 patients with type 2 diabetes (age 57 +/- 10 years, diabetes duration 12 +/- 7 years, BMI 34.0 +/- 7.0 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) 9.1 +/- 1.2%, mean +/- SD) treated with insulin (alone or in combination with sulfonylureas and/or metformin) were randomized to receive additional preprandial subcutaneous injections of either placebo or pramlintide (60 micro g TID, 90 microg BID, or 120 microg BID). RESULTS: Treatment with pramlintide 120 micro g BID led to a sustained reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) (-0.68 and -0.62% at weeks 26 and 52, respectively), which was significantly greater than that seen with placebo (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients achieving an HbA(1c) <8% was approximately twofold greater with pramlintide (120 microg BID) than with placebo (46 vs. 28%, P < 0.05). The glycemic improvement with pramlintide 120 micro g BID was accompanied by a mean weight loss (-1.4 kg vs. +0.7 kg with placebo at week 52, P < 0.05) and occurred without an overall increase in the severe hypoglycemia event rate. The most common adverse event associated with pramlintide use was transient, mild-to-moderate nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Mealtime amylin replacement with pramlintide 120 microg BID, as an adjunct to insulin therapy, improves long-term glycemic and weight control in patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Effect of repaglinide addition to metformin monotherapy on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of repaglinide in combination with metformin with monotherapy of each drug on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 83 patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c > 7.1%) when receiving the antidiabetic agent metformin were enrolled in this multicenter, double-blind trial. Subjects were randomized to continue with their prestudy dose of metformin (n = 27), to continue with their prestudy dose of metformin with the addition of repaglinide (n = 27), or to receive repaglinide alone (n = 29). For patients receiving repaglinide, the optimal dose was determined during a 4- to 8-week titration and continued for a 3-month maintenance period. RESULTS: In subjects receiving combined therapy, HbA1c was reduced by 1.4 +/- 0.2%, from 8.3 to 6.9% (P = 0.0016) and fasting plasma glucose by 2.2 mmol/l (P = 0.0003). No significant changes were observed in subjects treated with either repaglinide or metformin monotherapy in HbA1c (0.4 and 0.3% decrease, respectively) or fasting plasma glucose (0.5 mmol/l increase and 0.3 mmol/l decrease respectively). Subjects receiving repaglinide either alone or in combination with metformin, had an increase in fasting levels of insulin between baseline and the end of the trial of 4.04 +/- 1.56 and 4.23 +/- 1.50 mU/l, respectively (P < 0.02). Gastrointestinal adverse events were common in the metformin group. An increase in body weight occurred in the repaglinide and combined therapy groups (2.4 +/- 0.5 and 3.0 +/- 0.5 kg, respectively; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Combined metformin and repaglinide therapy resulted in superior glycemic control compared with repaglinide or metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycemia had not been well controlled on metformin alone. Repaglinide monotherapy was as effective as metformin monotherapy.     

Optimizing insulin secretagogue therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized double-blind study with repaglinide

OBJECTIVE: Repaglinide, a novel antidiabetic agent that has a rapid onset and short duration of action, was developed for mealtime dosing. The purpose of this pharmacodynamic study was to validate a prandial regimen of repaglinide by comparing meal-related dosing with a regimen in which the same total daily dose was divided into only two doses at morning and evening meals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in 19 antidiabetic agent-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (mean age 58 years, known duration of diabetes 3.5 years, HbA(1c) 7.3%, and BMI 32 kg/m(2)). Patients were randomly assigned to receive repaglinide either before each of the three main meals or before breakfast and before the evening meal. Patients in both groups received the same total daily dose of repaglinide. Twenty-four hour profiles of blood glucose, plasma insulin, and plasma C-peptide concentrations were measured at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Repaglinide increased postprandial insulin levels and markedly reduced postprandial glucose levels relative to baseline in both groups. Significant reductions were also recorded in fasting blood glucose and HbA(1c) levels. The repaglinide regimen, in which a dose was taken before each main meal, was more effective in improving glycemic control (including postprandial glucose and HbA(1c) levels) than the same total dose of repaglinide divided into morning and evening mealtime doses. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the strategy of mealtime dosing with repaglinide. The improvements in glycemic control observed in these patients are encouraging. In addition to classic parameters of glycemic control, improvements in postprandial glucose excursions may prove to be important because postprandial hyperglycemia has been suggested to be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in diabetes.     

A randomized trial of rosiglitazone therapy in patients with inadequately controlled insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone (RSG) when added to insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetic patients who are inadequately controlled on insulin monotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After 8 weeks of insulin standardization and placebo (PBO) run-in, 319 type 2 diabetic patients with mean baseline HbA(1c) > or = 7.5% (8.9 +/- 1.1 to 9.1 +/- 1.3) on twice-daily insulin therapy (total daily dose > or = 30 U) were randomized to 26 weeks of additional treatment with RSG (4 or 8 mg daily) or PBO. Insulin dose could be down- titrated only for safety reasons. The primary end point was reduction of HbA(1c) from baseline. RESULTS: RSG 4 and 8 mg daily significantly improved glycemic control, which was unchanged on PBO. By intent-to-treat analysis, treatment with RSG 8 mg plus insulin resulted in a mean reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) of 1.2% (P < 0.0001), despite a 12% mean reduction of insulin dosage. Over 50% of subjects treated daily with RSG 8 mg plus insulin had a reduction of HbA(1c) > or = 1.0%. Neither total:HDL cholesterol nor LDL:HDL cholesterol ratios significantly changed with RSG treatment. Serious adverse events did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of RSG to insulin treatment results in significant improvement in glycemic control and is generally well tolerated.     

Vascular effects of improving metabolic control with metformin or rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test whether vascular reactivity is modified by improving metabolic control and peripheral insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind design, we assigned 74 type 2 diabetic patients to rosiglitazone (8 mg/day), metformin (1,500 mg/day), or placebo treatment for 16 weeks and measured insulin sensitivity (euglycemic insulin clamp), ambulatory blood pressure, and forearm blood flow response to 1) intra-arterial acetylcholine (ACh), 2) intra-arterial nitroprusside, 3) the clamp, and 4) blockade of nitric oxide (NO) synthase. RESULTS: Compared with 25 nondiabetic subjects, patients had reduced insulin sensitivity (30 +/- 1 vs. 41 +/- 3 micromol. min(-1). kg fat-free mass(-1); P < 0.001) and reduced maximal response to ACh (586 +/- 42 vs. 883 +/- 81%; P < 0.001). Relative to placebo, 16 weeks of rosiglitazone and metformin similarly reduced fasting glucose (-2.3 +/- 0.5 and -2.3 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) and HbA(1c) (-1.2 +/- 0.3 and -1.6 +/- 0.3%). Insulin sensitivity increased with rosiglitazone (+6 +/- 3 micromol. min(-1). kg fat-free mass(-1); P < 0.01) but not with metformin or placebo. Ambulatory diastolic blood pressure fell consistently (-2 +/- 1 mmHg; P < 0.05) only in the rosiglitazone group. Nitroprusside dose response, clamp-induced vasodilatation, and NO blockade were not affected by either treatment. In contrast, the slope of the ACh dose response improved with rosiglitazone (+40% versus baseline, P < 0.05, +70% versus placebo, P < 0.005) but did not change with either metformin or placebo. This improvement in endothelium-dependent vasodilatation was accompanied by decrements in circulating levels of free fatty acids and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. CONCLUSIONS: At equivalent glycemic control, rosiglitazone, but not metformin, improves endothelium dependent vasodilatation and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes.     

Limitations of conventional methods of self-monitoring of blood glucose: lessons learned from 3 days of continuous glucose sensing in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Children with type 1 diabetes are usually asked to perform self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) before meals and at bedtime, and it is assumed that if results are in target range, along with HbA(1c) measurements, then overall glycemic control is adequate. However, the brief glimpses in the 24-h glucose profile provided by SMBG may miss marked glycemic excursions. The MiniMed Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (CGMS) has provided a new method to obtain continuous glucose profiles and opportunities to examine limitations of conventional monitoring. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 56 children with type 1 diabetes (age 2-18 years) wore the CGMS for 3 days. Patients entered four fingerstick blood samples into the monitor for calibration and kept records of food intake, exercise, and hypoglycemic symptoms. Data were downloaded, and glycemic patterns were identified. RESULTS: Despite satisfactory HbA(1c) levels (7.7 +/- 1.4%) and premeal glucose levels near the target range, the CGMS revealed profound postprandial hyperglycemia. Almost 90% of the peak postprandial glucose levels after every meal were >180 mg/dl (above target), and almost 50% were >300 mg/dl. Additionally, the CGMS revealed frequent and prolonged asymptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose <60 mg/dl) in almost 70% of the children. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent HbA(1c) levels and target preprandial glucose levels, children often experience nocturnal hypoglycemia and postprandial hyperglycemia that are not evident with routine monitoring. Repeated use of the CGMS may provide a means to optimize basal and bolus insulin replacement in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

双时相门冬胰岛素30对2型糖尿病患者血糖的影响

目的分析2型糖尿病患者口服降糖药控制不满意时加用双时相门冬胰岛素30治疗前后血糖水平的变化,探讨其降糖作用。方法 40例2型糖尿病患者口服降糖药控制不满意时加用双时相门冬胰岛素30治疗24周,观察治疗前后血糖等指标的变化。结果双时相门冬胰岛素30治疗后空腹血糖(FPG)、餐后2 h血糖(PPG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、甘油三酯(TG)水平较治疗前显著降低,患者加用双时相门冬胰岛素30治疗后,HbA1c水平<7%及≤6.5%者所占比例较治疗前显著增加。结论双时相门冬胰岛素30可改善口服降糖药控制不满意时2型糖尿病患者的血糖控制及血脂代谢,有助于降低2型糖尿病患者并发症,改善预后。     

Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study administering glimepiride to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with rosiglitazone monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of glimepiride plus rosiglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) inadequately controlled with rosiglitazone monotherapy. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study Patients were assigned to a 6-week forced titration of either glimepiride or placebo in combination with rosiglitazone (4 or 8 mg/d) followed by a maintenance period of 20 weeks. The outcomes were changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid levels, and body weight, as well as safety measures. RESULTS: Forty patients (23 women, 17 men) with type 2 DM were included in the study The mean (SD) age was 60.2 (7.8) years in the glimepiride group and 50.8 (9.7) years in the placebo group (P < 0.002). Mean (SD) screening HbA(1c) was 7.9% (0.6%) among patients receiving glimepiride and 8.4% (0.6%) among those receiving placebo. Mean (SD) duration of DM was 7.2 (8.8) and 4.6 (4.0) years, respectively Mean (SD) FPG at randomization was 155.0 (22.9) mg/dL and 180.2 (36.9) mg/dL, respectively (P < 0.018). Combination therapy with glimepiride produced greater reductions versus placebo combination in HbA(1c) (mean [SE], -12% [0.1%] vs -03% [02%]; P < 0.001) and FPG (mean [SE], -24.4 [6.0] mg/dL vs 5.9 [8.0] mg/dL; P < 0.006). More patients in the glimepiride group achieved the HbA(1c) target of < or =7% (60% vs 143%; P < 0.008). There were no significant differences in the rate or type of adverse events between groups, and no episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred with either treatment CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the combination of glimepiride and rosiglitazone was efficacious and well tolerated in a small sample of patients with type 2 DM. The combination might be used to improve glycemic control in patients inadequately controlled with rosiglitazone monotherapy.