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.     

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.     

Addition of nateglinide to rosiglitazone monotherapy suppresses mealtime hyperglycemia and improves overall glycemic control

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of nateglinide added to rosiglitazone monotherapy on glycemic control and on postprandial glucose and insulin levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study compared the efficacy of nateglinide (120 mg a.c.) and placebo added to rosiglitazone monotherapy (8 mg q.d.) in 402 patients with type 2 diabetes with HbA(1c) between 7 and 11% (inclusive). Efficacy parameters tested included HbA(1c) and plasma glucose and insulin levels in the fasting state and after a standardized meal challenge. Safety data were also collected. RESULTS: In placebo-treated patients, HbA(1c) did not change (Delta = 0.0 +/- 0.1%). In patients randomized to nateglinide, HbA(1c) decreased from 8.3 to 7.5% (Delta = -0.8 +/- 0.1%, P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). Target HbA(1c) (<7.0%) was achieved by 38% of patients treated with combination therapy and by 9% of patients remaining on rosiglitazone monotherapy. In nateglinide-treated patients, fasting plasma glucose levels decreased by 0.7 mmol/l, 2-h postprandial glucose levels decreased by 2.7 mmol/l, and 30-min insulin levels increased by 165 pmol/l compared with no changes from baseline of these parameters with placebo added to rosiglitazone (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: By selectively augmenting early insulin release and decreasing prandial glucose excursions, nateglinide produced a clinically meaningful improvement in overall glycemic exposure in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with rosiglitazone. Therefore, nateglinide substantially improves the likelihood of achieving a therapeutic target of HbA(1c) <7.0%.     

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.     

Effect of combination glipizide GITS/metformin on fibrinolytic and metabolic parameters in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic subjects

OBJECTIVE: Epidemiological studies have implicated increased plasminogen-activated inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) as a marker or predictor of accelerated coronary atherosclerotic disease in type 2 diabetes. We sought to determine whether metabolic control, independent of its oral mode of implementation, affects PAI-1 in patients with marked hyperglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 91 subjects were screened, subjected to a 4-week drug washout, and randomized to daily treatment with glipizide GITS (maximum 20 mg, n = 46) or metformin (maximum 2,550 mg, n = 45) as monotherapy. After monotherapy, combination therapy was initiated by adding the second agent to the regimen. Plasma glucose (fasting and postprandial), HbA(1c), fructosamine, and PAI-1 were assayed before and after randomization and sequentially thereafter in all subjects; hepatic glucose output (HGO) and abdominal fat distribution were each measured in a subset of subjects. RESULTS: Glycemic control was markedly impaired at baseline (mean HbA(1c) 10.4 +/- 0.2% glipizide GITS; 10.0 +/- 0.2% metformin) but improved comparably with each agent as monotherapy and in combination (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline), as assessed with meal tolerance studies, fructosamine values, and HGO. Body weight and abdominal fat distribution did not change significantly in either group. PAI-1 concentrations were extraordinarily high (5- to 10-fold more than normal) at baseline (202 +/- 12 ng/ml glipizide GITS; 201 +/- 13 ng/ml metformin) but declined comparably, and significantly, after treatment with either agent as monotherapy and decreased further with combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When hyperglycemia is profound, increases in PAI-1 are also profound. Control of hyperglycemia with either glipizide GITS, an insulin secretagogue, or metformin as monotherapy comparably ameliorates elevated PAI-1.     

PRESERVE-beta: two-year efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide or glyburide plus metformin

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide/metformin versus glyburide/metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, 2-year study of 428 drug-na?ve patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients received 120 mg a.c. nateglinide or 1.25 mg q.d. glyburide plus 500 mg q.d. open-label metformin for the initial 4 weeks. During a subsequent 12-week titration period, glyburide and metformin were increased by 1.25- and 500-mg increments to maximum daily doses of 10 and 2,000 mg, respectively, if biweekly fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or = 6.7 mmol/l. Nateglinide was not titrated. Blinding was maintained by use of matching placebo for nateglinide and glyburide. An 88-week monitoring period followed, during which HbA1c (A1C), FPG, and postprandial glucose excursions (PPGEs) during an oral glucose tolerance test were measured. RESULTS: In nateglinide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.4% at baseline and 6.9% at week 104. In glyburide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.3% at baseline and 6.8% at week 104 (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline for both treatments, NS between treatments). The deltaPPGE averaged -96 +/- 19 (P < 0.0001) and -57 +/- 22 mmol.l(-1).min(-1) (P < 0.05) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively, whereas deltaFPG was -1.6 +/- 0.2 (P < 0.0001) and -2.4 +/- 0.2 mmol/l (P < 0.0001) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively (P < 0.01 between groups). Thus, the two treatments achieved similar efficacy with differential effects on FPG versus PPGE. Hypoglycemia occurred in 8.2 and 17.7% of patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar good glycemic control can be maintained for 2 years with either treatment regimen, but nateglinide/metformin may represent a safer approach to initial combination therapy.     

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.     

Mealtime glucose regulation with nateglinide in healthy volunteers: comparison with repaglinide and placebo

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of single doses of nateglinide (A-4166), repaglinide, and placebo on mealtime insulin secretion and glycemic control in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers participated in this open-label five-period crossover study. They received single 10-min preprandial doses of 120 mg nateglinide, 0.5 or 2 mg repaglinide, or placebo or 1 min preprandially of 2 mg repaglinide. Subjects received each dose only once, 48 h apart. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed from 0 to 12 h postdose. RESULTS: Nateglinide induced insulin secretion more rapidly than 2 and 0.5 mg repaglinide and placebo (10 min preprandial), with mean rates of insulin rise of 2.3, 1.3, 1.15, and 0.8 microU x ml(-1) x min(-1), respectively, over the 0- to 30-min postmeal interval. After peaking, insulin concentrations decreased rapidly in the nateglinide-treated group and were similar to placebo within 2 h postdose. After 2 mg repaglinide, peak insulin concentrations were delayed and returned to baseline more slowly than with nateglinide treatment. Nateglinide treatment produced lower average plasma glucose concentrations in the 0- to 2-h postdose interval than either dose of repaglinide and placebo (P < 0.05 vs. 0.5 mg repaglinide and placebo). Plasma glucose concentrations returned more rapidly to predose levels with nateglinide treatment than with either dose of repaglinide. Treatment with repaglinide produced a sustained hypoglycemic effect up to 6 h postdose. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-dose study in nondiabetic volunteers, nateglinide provided a more rapid and shorter-lived stimulation of insulin secretion than repaglinide, resulting in lower meal-related glucose excursions. If similar results are observed in diabetes, nateglinide may produce a more physiological insulin secretory response with the potential for a reduced risk of postabsorptive hypoglycemia.     

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.     

Improvement of glycemic control by 1 year of insulin therapy leads to a sustained decrease in sE-selectin concentrations in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether and how improvement of glycemic control by long-term insulin therapy decreases endothelial activation as measured by serum levels of the soluble adhesion molecules sE-selectin and vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM-1) and whether the drug used to lower blood glucose in addition to insulin influences such a response. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Circulating adhesion molecules were measured before and after 3 and 12 months of therapy in 81 patients with type 2 diabetes and 41 subjects without diabetes. The patients were treated with bedtime administration of NPH insulin combined with either glibenclamide (n = 19), metformin (n = 17), glibenclamide and metformin (n = 17), or morning administration of NPH insulin (n = 23). RESULTS: Before insulin therapy, serum sE-selectin level was 71% higher in the patients with type 2 diabetes (77 +/- 4 ng/ml) than in the normal subjects (45 +/- 3 ng/ml, P < 0.001), whereas levels of sVCAM-1 were comparable (420 +/- 25 vs. 400 +/- 11 ng/ml, respectively). Glycemic control in all patients improved as judged from a decrease in HbA1c from 9.7 +/- 0.2 to 7.6 +/- 0.1% (P < 0.001). sE-selectin decreased to 67 +/- 4 ng/ml by 3 months (P < 0.001 vs. 0 months) and then remained unchanged until 12 months (70 +/- 4 ng/ml P < 0.001 vs 0 months). sVCnM-1 levels at 12 months was similar to those at 0 months (416 +/- 25 ng/ml). The change in glycemic control, measured by HbA1c, but not in other parameters, was correlated with the change of sE-selectin (r = 0.41, P < 0.001) within the patients with type 2 diabetes. The decreases in sE-selectin were not different between the various treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that improvement in glycemic control by administration of insulin alone or insulin combined with either glibenclamide, metformin, or both agents induces a sustained decrease in sE-selectin, the magnitude of which seems to be dependent on the degree of improvement in glycemia. These data suggest that sE-selectin might provide a marker of effects of treatment of chronic hyperglycemia on endothelial activation.     

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy: repaglinide plus metformin versus nateglinide plus metformin

OBJECTIVE: An open-label, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter trial was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of repaglinide versus nateglinide, when used in a combination regimen with metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 192) had HbA(1c) >7% and < or =12% during previous treatment with a sulfonylurea, metformin, or low-dose Glucovance (glyburide < or =2.5 mg, metformin < or =500 mg). After a 4-week metformin run-in therapy period (doses escalated to 1,000 mg b.i.d.), patients were randomized to addition of repaglinide (n = 96) (1 mg/meal, maximum 4 mg/meal) or nateglinide (n = 96) (120 mg/meal, reduced to 60 mg if needed) to the regimen for 16 weeks. Glucose, insulin, and glucagon were assessed after a liquid test meal at baseline and week 16. RESULTS: Final HbA(1c) values were lower for repaglinide/metformin treatment than for nateglinide/metformin (7.1 vs. 7.5%). Repaglinide/metformin therapy showed significantly greater mean reductions of HbA(1c) (-1.28 vs. -0.67%; P < 0.001) and of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (-39 vs. -21 mg/dl; P = 0.002). Self-monitoring of blood glucose profiles were significantly lower for repaglinide/metformin before breakfast, before lunch, and at 2:00 A.M. Changes in the area under the curve of postprandial glucose, insulin, or glucagon peaks after a test meal were not significantly different for the two treatment groups during this study. Median final doses were 5.0 mg/day for repaglinide and 360 mg/day for nateglinide. Safety assessments were comparable for the two regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of repaglinide to metformin therapy resulted in reductions of HbA(1c) and FPG values that were significantly greater than the reductions observed for addition of nateglinide.     

Multicenter,randomized, double-masked,parallel-group assessment of simultaneous glipizide/metformin as second-line pharmacologic treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that is inadequately controlled by a sulfonylurea

BACKGROUND: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) with inadequate long-term blood glucose control with sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy require additional treatment. The synergistic effects of combining glipizide with metformin on glucose control may be realized by treating the primary effects of type 2 DM, impaired insulin secretion, and insulin resistance. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed therapy with glipizide/metformin combination tablets in patients with type 2 DM that is uncontrolled by at least half the maximum labeled daily dose of a sulfonylurea. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-masked, parallel-group, active-controlled study, patients were randomized to receive glipizide 30-mg, metformin 500-mg, or glipizide/metformin 5/500 mg tablets for 18 weeks (metformin and glipizide/metformin doses were titrated to achieve blood glucose control). Maximum total daily doses were glipizide 30 mg, metformin 2000 mg, and glipizide/ metformin 20/2000 mg. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were included in the study. The mean (SD) age was 56.2 (10.1) years; 61.5% of patients were male; 70.0% were white, 15.8% were Hispanic/Latino, 13.0% were black, and 1.2% were Asian/Pacific Islanders. Patients were, on average, obese (mean [SD] body mass index, 31.3 [4.7] kg/m2), had moderate to severe hyperglycemia (mean [SD] glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 8.7% [1.1]), and had a mean (SD) DM duration of 6.5 (4.9) years. Glipizide/ metformin tablets controlled the HbA1c level more effectively than did either glipizide or metformin monotherapies (mean treatment differences, in favor of glipizide/ metformin, of -1.06% and -0.98%, respectively, P < 0.001). At study end, an HbA1c level < 7.0% was achieved in approximately 4-fold more patients who were treated with glipizide/metformin (36.3%) compared with glipizide (8.9%) or metformin (9.9%) monotherapies. Glipizide/metformin tablets also reduced the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level and the 3-hour postprandial glucose area under the concentration-time curve more effectively than did either monotherapy, without increasing the fasting insulin level. The greater blood glucose control with glipizide/ metformin tablets was achieved at a mean daily dose of glipizide/metformin 17.5/1747 mg, compared with mean doses of glipizide 30.0 mg or metformin 1927 mg. Treatments were well tolerated, with a low incidence of symptoms of hypoglycemia evidenced by a fingerstick blood glucose measurement < or = 50 mg/dL in the combination group (12.6%); 1 patient discontinued the study treatment for this reason. No patient required medical assistance for hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Glipizide/metformin tablets were more effective than either glipizide or metformin monotherapy in controlling HbA1c and in reducing FPG compared with baseline in patients with blood glucose that was uncontrolled with previous sulfonylurea treatment. In addition, patients receiving glipizide/ metformin were more likely to achieve an HbA1c level < 7.0%. These results were consistent with the synergistic effects on insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction. Glipizide/metformin was well tolerated, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia.     

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.     

Metformin as an adjunct therapy in adolescents with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether, in adolescents with type 1 diabetes, the addition of metformin to insulin and standard diabetes management results in 1) higher insulin sensitivity and 2) lower HbA1c, fasting glucose, insulin dosage (units per kilogram per day) and BMI. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled 3-month trial of metformin therapy in 27 adolescents with type 1 diabetes, high insulin dosage (>1 unit. kg(-1). day(-1)), and HbA1c >8%, with measurements of insulin sensitivity (by frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test [FSIGT]), HbA1c, insulin dosage, and BMI at the onset and end of treatment. RESULTS: At t = 0, HbA1c was 9.2 +/- 0.9%, insulin dosage was 1.2 +/- 0.2 units. kg(-1). day(-1), fasting glucose was 10.6 +/- 2.4 mmol/l, and BMI was 24.2 +/- 3.9 kg/m2 (means +/- SD), with no difference between the metformin and placebo groups. At the end of the study, HbA1c was 0.6% lower in the metformin group than in the placebo group (P < 0.05). This was achieved at lower daily insulin dosages (metformin group -0.14 +/- 0.1 vs. placebo group 0.02 +/- 0.2 units. kg(-1). day(-1); P < 0.05), with no significant change in BMI. Fasting glucose levels improved significantly in the metformin group (P < 0.05). Change in insulin sensitivity, measured by FSIGT, was not significantly different between the two groups at study end. Mild hypoglycemia occurred more frequently in the metformin-treated than in the placebo subjects (1.75 +/- 0.8 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.4 events. patient(-1). week(-1); P = 0.03). There were no differences in frequency of severe hypoglycemic episodes or gastrointestinal complaints between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin treatment lowered HbA1c and decreased insulin dosage with no weight gain in teens with type 1 diabetes in poor metabolic control. Changes in insulin sensitivity were not documented in this study using the FSIGT. Long-term studies will determine whether these improvements are sustained and whether certain subgroups accrue greater benefit from this therapy.     

Additive glucose-lowering effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 and metformin in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) reduces plasma glucose in type 2 diabetic patients by stimulating insulin secretion and inhibiting glucagon secretion. The biguanide metformin is believed to lower plasma glucose without affecting insulin secretion. We conducted this study to investigate the effect of a combination therapy with GLP-1 and metformin, which could theoretically be additive, in type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a semiblinded randomized crossover study, seven patients received treatment with metformin (1,500 mg daily orally) alternating with GLP-1 (continuous subcutaneous infusion of 2.4 pmol x kg(-1) x min(-1)) alternating with a combination of metformin and GLP-1 for 48 h. Under fixed energy intake, we examined the effects on plasma glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, and appetite. RESULTS: Fasting plasma glucose (day 2) decreased from 13.9 +/- 1 (no treatment) to 11.2 +/- 0.4 (metformin) and 11.5 +/- 0.5 (GLP-1) and further decreased to 9.4 +/- 0.7 (combination therapy) (P = 0.0005, no difference between monotherapy with GLP-1 and metformin). The 24-h mean plasma glucose (day 2) decreased from 11.8 +/- 0.5 (metformin) and 11.7 +/- 0.8 (GLP-1) to 9.8 +/- 0.5 (combination) (P = 0.02, no difference between GLP-1 and metformin). Insulin levels were similar between the three regimens, but glucagon levels were significantly reduced with GLP-1 compared with metformin (P = 0.0003). Combination therapy had no additional effect on appetite scores. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with GLP-1 and metformin have equal effects on plasma glucose and additive effects upon combination.     

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.     

Differential effects of metformin and troglitazone on cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Traditional cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) only partly explain the excessive risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now an increasing appreciation for many novel CVRF that occur largely as a result of insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia. Therefore, we investigated whether diabetes medications that vary in their mechanism of action and ability to reduce insulin resistance may differ in their effects on both traditional and novel CVRF. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared the addition of metformin or troglitazone therapy on CVRF in 22 subjects with type 2 diabetes who remained in poor glycemic control (with HbA1c >8.5%) while taking glyburide 10 mg twice daily. Subjects were initially randomized to either metformin 850 mg once daily or troglitazone 200 mg once daily. Both medications were then titrated upward as needed to achieve fasting plasma glucose <120 mg/dl. Measures of glucose control, insulin resistance, and CVRF (blood pressure, lipids, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and small dense LDL) were assessed both before and after therapy. RESULTS: After 4 months of treatment, both metformin and troglitazone led to similar decreases in fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c. The reduction in insulin resistance determined by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp was nearly twofold greater with troglitazone than metformin. Metformin did not induce significant changes in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, LDL size, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, or plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. However, C-reactive protein did decrease by 33% (6 +/- 1 to 4 +/- 1 mg/l; P < 0.01) [corrected]. Troglitazone therapy was associated with increases in LDL size (26.21 +/- 0.22 to 26.56 +/- 0.25 nm; P=0.04) and HDL cholesterol (33 +/- 3 to 36 +/- 3 mg/dl; P=0.05) and decreases in triglycerides (197 +/- 19 to 155 +/- 23 mg/dl; P=0.07) and C-reactive protein by 60% (8 +/- 3 to 3 +/- 1 mg/l, P < 0.01) [corrected]. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with type 2 diabetes in whom maximal sulfonylurea therapy failed, the addition of the insulin sensitizer troglitazone seemed to have greater benefits on several traditional and novel CVRF than metformin therapy. These differences were not related to glycemic improvement but reflected, in part, the greater reduction in insulin resistance obtained with addition of troglitazone. These data suggest that medications that more effectively address this underlying metabolic defect may be more beneficial in reducing cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes.     

Combination of insulin and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the metabolic effects of metformin, as compared with placebo, in type 2 diabetic patients intensively treated with insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Metformin improves glycemic control in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients. Its effect in type 2 diabetic patients who are intensively treated with insulin has not been studied. A total of 390 patients whose type 2 diabetes was controlled with insulin therapy completed a randomized controlled double-blind trial with a planned interim analysis after 16 weeks of treatment.The subjects were selected from three outpatient clinics in regional hospitals and were randomly assigned to either the placebo or metformin group, in addition to insulin therapy. Intensive glucose monitoring with immediate insulin adjustments according to strict guidelines was conducted. Indexes of glycemic control, insulin requirements, body weight, blood pressure, plasma lipids, hypoglycemic events, and other adverse events were measured. RESULTS: Of the 390 subjects, 37 dropped out (12 in the placebo and 25 in the metformin group). Of those who completed 16 weeks of treatment, metformin use, as compared with placebo, was associated with improved glycemic control (mean daily glucose at 16 weeks 7.8 vs. 8.8 mmol/l, P = 0.006; mean GHb 6.9 vs. 7.6%, P < 0.0001); reduced insulin requirements (63.8 vs. 71.3 IU, P < 0.0001); reduced weight gain (-0.4 vs. +1.2 kg, P < 0.01); and decreased plasma LDL cholesterol (-0.21 vs. -0.02 mmol/l, P < 0.01). Risk of hypoglycemia was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS-In type 2 diabetic patients who are intensively treated with insulin, the combination of insulin and metformin results in superior glycemic control compared with insulin therapy alone, while insulin requirements and weight gain are less.     

Repaglinide versus metformin in combination with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes established on insulin/metformin combination therapy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on glycemic control and weight gain of repaglinide versus metformin combined with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 80 subjects treated with 850 or 1,000 mg t.i.d. metformin combined with bedtime NPH insulin were randomized to 13 weeks of open-label treatment with 4 mg t.i.d. repaglinide (n = 39) or metformin (dose unchanged) (n = 41). Insulin dose was titrated at the clinician's discretion, aiming for a fasting blood glucose (FBG) < or =6.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Baseline age, diabetes duration, insulin requirement, weight, BMI, FBG, and HbA(1c) (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial-aligned assay, normal range 4.6-6.2%) were similar. Glycemic control improved (nonsignificantly) with insulin/metformin by (mean) 0.4%, from 8.4 to 8.1% (P = 0.09) but deteriorated with insulin/repaglinide by (mean) 0.4%, from 8.1 to 8.6% (P = 0.03; P = 0.005 between groups). Weight gain was less with insulin/metformin: 0.9 +/- 0.4 kg (means +/- SE) (P = 0.01) versus 2.7 +/- 0.4 kg (P < 0.0001) (P = 0.002 between groups). The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score (potential range 0 [minimum] to 36 [maximum]) increased from 32.4 +/- 0.8 to 34.1 +/- 0.5 (P = 0.01) with insulin/metformin but decreased from 32.5 +/- 0.9 to 29.1 +/- 1.3 (P < 0.002) with insulin/repaglinide. CONCLUSIONS: Combined with bedtime NPH insulin, metformin provides superior glycemic control to repaglinide with less weight gain and improved diabetes treatment satisfaction.     

Health and economic effects of adding nateglinide to metformin to achieve dual control of glycosylated hemoglobin and postprandial glucose levels in a model of type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a common disease whose complications have great costs, both in quality of life and expense of treatment. Improving glycemic control, as measured by monitoring glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, can reduce the rate of such complications. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to estimate the lifetime costs associated with diabetes-related complications in a theoretical population receiving metformin monotherapy and to predict the health and economic effect of improving glycemic control in this theoretical population by combining metformin with nateglinide. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was developed to simulate the long-term (30 years) complication rates (microvascular and macrovascular) of a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The model simulated each year of life for each patient in a theoretical cohort of 10,000 patients until diabetes-related complications were present or death occurred. The mean accumulated costs (direct medical costs for acute care and subsequent care for diabetes-related complications), mean survival time, and the frequency of each type of complication were estimated. Both effectiveness and cost data were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key model input parameters. RESULTS: Average costs of treating complications in theoretical patients undergoing metformin monotherapy were estimated at $29,565 per patient. Savings of $2,742 were estimated per patient for all complications--particularly, nephropathy ($1,166) and macrovascular disease ($632)--when nateglinide was added. The cost-effectiveness ratio of adding nateglinide to metformin was estimated at $27,131 per undiscounted life-year gained (95% CI, $23,710-$28,577) or $43,024 (95% CI, $37,285-$45,193) per additional discounted life-year gained. In the sensitivity analyses, decreasing HbA1c level at baseline, HbA1c upward drift, and duration of disease improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nateglinide and metformin, compared with metformin alone, was predicted to reduce the frequency of complications and, thus, treatment costs in this theoretical model. The major factor in cost savings was fewer complications due to nephropathy. The increased drug treatment costs were expected to be offset by the long-term savings from reducing complication rates.