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.     

A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia

OBJECTIVE: Published reports suggest that pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have different effects on lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these previous studies were either retrospective chart reviews or clinical trials not rigorously controlled for concomitant glucose- and lipid-lowering therapies. This study examines the lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We enrolled subjects with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (treated with diet alone or oral monotherapy) and dyslipidemia (not treated with any lipid-lowering agents). After a 4-week placebo washout period, subjects randomly assigned to the pioglitazone arm (n = 400) were treated with 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks followed by 45 mg once daily for an additional 12 weeks, whereas subjects randomly assigned to rosiglitazone (n = 402) were treated with 4 mg once daily followed by 4 mg twice daily for the same intervals. RESULTS: Triglyceride levels were reduced by 51.9 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with pioglitazone, but were increased by 13.1 +/- 7.8 mg/dl with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001 between treatments). Additionally, the increase in HDL cholesterol was greater (5.2 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.5 mg/dl; P < 0.001) and the increase in LDL cholesterol was less (12.3 +/- 1.6 vs. 21.3 +/- 1.6 mg/dl; P < 0.001) for pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone, respectively. LDL particle concentration was reduced with pioglitazone and increased with rosiglitazone (P < 0.001). LDL particle size increased more with pioglitazone (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone and rosiglitazone have significantly different effects on plasma lipids independent of glycemic control or concomitant lipid-lowering or other antihyperglycemic therapy. Pioglitazone compared with rosiglitazone is associated with significant improvements in triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL particle concentration, and LDL particle size.     

Triple therapy in type 2 diabetes: insulin glargine or rosiglitazone added to combination therapy of sulfonylurea plus metformin in insulin-naive patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of add-on insulin glargine versus rosiglitazone in insulin-na?ve patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on dual oral therapy with sulfonylurea plus metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel trial, 217 patients (HbA(1c) [A1C] 7.5-11%, BMI >25 kg/m(2)) on > or =50% of maximal-dose sulfonylurea and metformin received add-on insulin glargine 10 units/day or rosiglitazone 4 mg/day. Insulin glargine was forced-titrated to target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) < or =5.5-6.7 mmol/l (< or =100-120 mg/dl), and rosiglitazone was increased to 8 mg/day any time after 6 weeks if FPG was >5.5 mmol/l. RESULTS: A1C improvements from baseline were similar in both groups (-1.7 vs. -1.5% for insulin glargine vs. rosiglitazone, respectively); however, when baseline A1C was >9.5%, the reduction of A1C with insulin glargine was greater than with rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine yielded better FPG values than rosiglitazone (-3.6 +/- 0.23 vs. -2.6 +/- 0.22 mmol/l; P = 0.001). Insulin glargine final dose per day was 38 +/- 26 IU vs. 7.1 +/- 2 mg for rosiglitazone. Confirmed hypoglycemic events at plasma glucose <3.9 mmol/l (<70 mg/dl) were slightly greater for the insulin glargine group (n = 57) than for the rosiglitazone group (n = 47) (P = 0.0528). The calculated average rate per patient-year of a confirmed hypoglycemic event (<70 mg/dl), after adjusting for BMI, was 7.7 (95% CI 5.4-10.8) and 3.4 (2.3-5.0) for the insulin glargine and rosiglitazone groups, respectively (P = 0.0073). More patients in the insulin glargine group had confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia of <3.9 mmol/l (P = 0.02) and <2.8 mmol/l (P < 0.05) than in the rosiglitazone group. Effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels from baseline to end point with insulin glargine (-4.4, -1.4, and -19.0%, respectively) contrasted with those of rosiglitazone (+10.1, +13.1, and +4.6%, respectively; P < 0.002). HDL cholesterol was unchanged with insulin glargine but increased with rosiglitazone by 4.4% (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine had less weight gain than rosiglitazone (1.6 +/- 0.4 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.4 kg; P = 0.02), fewer adverse events (7 vs. 29%; P = 0.0001), and no peripheral edema (0 vs. 12.5%). Insulin glargine saved $235/patient over 24 weeks compared with rosiglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose insulin glargine combined with a sulfonylurea and metformin resulted in similar A1C improvements except for greater reductions in A1C when baseline was > or =9.5% compared with add-on maximum-dose rosiglitazone. Further, insulin glargine was associated with more hypoglycemia but less weight gain, no edema, and salutary lipid changes at a lower cost of therapy.     

Effects of exenatide (exendin-4) on glycemic control and weight over 30 weeks in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the ability of the incretin mimetic exenatide (exendin-4) to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with maximally effective metformin doses. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A triple-blind, placebo-controlled, 30-week study at 82 U.S. sites was performed with 336 randomized patients. In all, 272 patients completed the study. The intent-to-treat population baseline was 53 +/- 10 years with BMI of 34.2 +/- 5.9 kg/m(2) and HbA(1c) of 8.2 +/- 1.1%. After 4 weeks of placebo, subjects self-administered 5 microg exenatide or placebo subcutaneously twice daily for 4 weeks followed by 5 or 10 microg exenatide, or placebo subcutaneously twice daily for 26 weeks. All subjects continued metformin therapy. RESULTS: At week 30, HbA(1c) changes from baseline +/- SE for each group were -0.78 +/- 0.10% (10 microg), -0.40 +/- 0.11% (5 microg), and +0.08 +/- 0.10% (placebo; intent to treat; adjusted P < 0.002). Of evaluable subjects, 46% (10 microg), 32% (5 microg), and 13% (placebo) achieved HbA(1c) < or =7% (P < 0.01 vs. placebo). Exenatide-treated subjects displayed progressive dose-dependent weight loss (-2.8 +/- 0.5 kg [10 microg], -1.6 +/- 0.4 kg [5 microg]; P < 0.001 vs. placebo). The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal in nature and generally mild to moderate. Incidence of mild to moderate hypoglycemia was low and similar across treatment arms, with no severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide was generally well tolerated and reduced HbA(1c) with no weight gain and no increased incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin.     

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.     

Basal insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: 28-week comparison of insulin glargine (HOE 901) and NPH insulin

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of the long-acting analog insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes who were previously treated with insulin alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 518 subjects with type 2 diabetes who were receiving NPH insulin with or without regular insulin for postprandial control were randomized to receive insulin glargine (HOE 901) once daily (n = 259) or NPH insulin once or twice daily in = 259) for 28 weeks in an open-label, multicenter trial. Doses were adjusted to obtain target fasting glucose <6.7 mmol/l. At study end point, the median total daily insulin dose in both treatment groups was 0.75 IU/kg. RESULTS: The treatment groups showed similar improvements in HbA1c from baseline to end point on intent-to-treat analysis. The mean change (means +/- SD) in HbA1c from baseline to end point was similar in the insulin glargine group (-0.41 +/- 0.1%) and the NPH group (-0.59 +/- 0.1%) after patients began with an average baseline HbA1c of approximately 8.5%. The treatments were associated with similar reductions in fasting glucose levels. Overall, mild symptomatic hypoglycemia was similar in insulin glargine subjects (61.4%) and NPH insulin subjects (66.%) However, nocturnal hypoglycemia in the insulin glargine group was reduced by 25% during the treatment period after the dose-titration phase(26.5 vs. 35.5%, P = 0.0136). Subjects in the insulin glargine group experienced less weight gain than those in the NPH group (0.4 vs. 1.4 kg, P < 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, once-daily bedtime insulin glargine is as effective as once- or twice-daily NPH in improving and maintaining glycemic control. In addition, insulin glargine deonstrates a lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycemia and less weight gain compared with NPH insulin.     

Randomized controlled clinical trial of glargine versus ultralente insulin in the treatment of type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Multiple daily insulin injection programs are commonly accompanied by considerable glycemic variation and hypoglycemia. We conducted a randomized crossover design clinical trial to compare glargine with ultralente insulin as a basal insulin in type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To determine whether the use of glargine insulin as a basal insulin would result in a comparable HbA1c and less glycemic variation and hypoglycemia than ultralente insulin, 22 individuals (aged 44 +/- 14 years [+/-SD], 55% men) with type 1 diabetes who were experienced with multiple daily insulin injections and had an HbA1c of <7.8% were randomized in a crossover design to receive either glargine or ultralente as the basal insulin for 4 months. Aspart insulin was used as the prandial insulin. Physicians providing insulin dose adjustment advice were masked to the type of basal insulin. RESULTS: Treatment with glargine resulted in lower mean HbA1c (6.82 +/- 0.13 vs. 7.02 +/- 0.13, difference: 0.2 +/- 0.08, P = 0.026), less nocturnal variability (plasma glucose 49.06 +/- 4.74 vs. 62.36 +/- 5.21 mg/dl, P = 0.04), and less hypoglycemia (24.5 +/- 2.99 vs. 31.3 +/- 4.04 events, P = 0.05), primarily due to less daytime hypoglycemia (P = 0.002). On the other hand, serious hypoglycemia and average glucose concentration measured with continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that while use of either ultralente or glargine as a basal insulin can result in excellent glycemic control, treatment with glargine is associated with slightly but significantly lower HbA1c and less nocturnal glycemic variability and hypoglycemia.     

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.     

Comparison of glargine insulin versus rosiglitazone addition in poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients on metformin plus sulfonylurea

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the mechanisms by which the addition of glargine insulin or rosiglitazone improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetic subjects poorly controlled on maximally effective doses of metformin plus sulfonylurea. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects (aged 47 +/- 11 years, BMI 31 +/- 5 kg/m(2), HbA(1c) [A1C] 9.4 +/- 1.3%) received bedtime glargine insulin (titrated based on the fasting plasma glucose [FPG], n = 10) or rosiglitazone (4 mg twice daily, n = 10). At baseline and after 4 months, A1C was measured and an oral glucose tolerance test and a 3-h euglycemic insulin (80 mU/m(2) per min) clamp with [3-(3)H]glucose were performed. RESULTS: A1C and FPG decreased similarly in the glargine insulin (9.1 +/- 0.4 to 7.6 +/- 0.3% and 212 +/- 14 to 139 +/- 5 mg/dl, respectively, both P < 0.0001) and rosiglitazone (9.4 +/- 0.3 to 7.6 +/- 0.4% and 223 +/- 14 to 160 +/- 19 mg/dl, respectively, both P < 0.005) groups. After 4 months, endogenous glucose production (EGP) declined similarly with glargine insulin (2.27 +/- 0.10 to 1.73 +/- 0.12 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1), P < 0.0001) and rosiglitazone (2.21 +/- 0.12 to 1.88 +/- 0.12 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1), P = 0.01). The hepatic insulin resistance index declined in the rosiglitazone group (32 +/- 3 to 21 +/- 1 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1) x microU/ml, P = 0.03 vs. baseline and P < 0.05 vs. glargine insulin) and did not change in the glargine group (22 +/- 5 to 20 +/- 3 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1) x microU/ml, P = NS). At 4 months, glargine insulin (3.6 +/- 0.5 to 4.2 +/- 0.4 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1), P < 0.01) and rosiglitazone (2.7 +/- 0.3 to 3.8 +/- 0.3 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1), P < 0.0005) increased R(d), but the increment was greater in the rosiglitazone group (P < 0.05). Diastolic blood pressure was reduced only by rosiglitazone (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with glargine insulin or rosiglitazone similarly reduced A1C, primarily by suppressing basal EGP (hepatic). Glargine insulin reduced basal EGP by increasing plasma insulin levels, while rosiglitazone decreased basal hepatic glucose production by improving hepatic insulin sensitivity.     

Clinical efficacy of orlistat therapy in overweight and obese patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: A 1-year randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE; Weight loss improves glycemic control, lipid profiles, and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, successful long-term weight loss is difficult for these patients, particularly those treated with insulin. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of orlistat, a gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor, on weight loss, glycemic control, and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight or obese insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a 1-year multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of orlistat (120 mg three times a day) or placebo combined with a reduced-calorie diet in overweight or obese adults (BMI 28-40 kg/m(2)) with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin alone or combined with oral agents, but with suboptimal metabolic control (HbA(1c) 7.5-12.0%). Outcome measurements included changes in body weight, glycemic control, blood pressure, and serum lipids. RESULTS; After 1 year, the orlistat group lost significantly more weight (-3.89 +/- 0.3% of baseline body weight, means +/- SE) than the placebo group (-1.27 +/- 0.3%, P < 0.001). Orlistat treatment, compared with placebo, produced greater decreases in HbA(1c) (-0.62 +/- 0.08 vs. -0.27 +/- 0.08%, P = 0.002), fasting serum glucose (-1.63 +/- 0.3 vs. -1.08 +/- 0.3 mmol/l, P = 0.02), and the required doses of insulin and other diabetic medications. Orlistat also produced greater improvements than placebo in serum total cholesterol (P = 0.0002) and LDL cholesterol concentrations (P = 0.001) and LDL/HDL ratio (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS; Orlistat therapy produces clinically significant weight loss, with improvements in glycemic control and cardiovascular disease risk factors, in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes who have suboptimal metabolic control with insulin therapy.     

Comparison of vildagliptin and rosiglitazone monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin and rosiglitazone during a 24-week treatment in drug-na?ve patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of 24-week treatment with vildagliptin (100 mg daily, given as equally divided doses; n = 519) or rosiglitazone (8 mg daily, given as a once-daily dose; n = 267). RESULTS: Monotherapy with vildagliptin and rosiglitazone decreased A1C (baseline = 8.7%) to a similar extent during the 24-week treatment, with most of the A1C reduction achieved by weeks 12 and 16, respectively. At end point, vildagliptin was as effective as rosiglitazone, improving A1C by -1.1 +/- 0.1% (P < 0.001) and -1.3 +/- 0.1% (P < 0.001), respectively, meeting the statistical criterion for noninferiority (upper-limit 95% CI for between-treatment difference < or =0.4%). Fasting plasma glucose decreased more with rosiglitazone (-2.3 mmol/l) than with vildagliptin (-1.3 mmol/l). Body weight did not change in vildagliptin-treated patients (-0.3 +/- 0.2 kg) but increased in rosiglitazone-treated patients (+1.6 +/- 0.3 kg, P < 0.001 vs. vildagliptin). Relative to rosiglitazone, vildagliptin significantly decreased triglycerides, total cholesterol, and LDL, non-HDL, and total-to-HDL cholesterol (-9 to -16%, all P < or = 0.01) but produced a smaller increase in HDL cholesterol (+4 vs. +9%, P = 0.003). The proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event was 61.4 vs. 64.0% in patients receiving vildagliptin and rosiglitazone, respectively. Only one mild hypoglycemic episode was experienced by one patient in each treatment group, while the incidence of edema was greater with rosiglitazone (4.1%) than vildagliptin (2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option in patients with type 2 diabetes, demonstrating similar glycemic reductions as rosiglitazone but without weight gain.     

Influence of rosiglitazone on flow-mediated dilation and other markers of cardiovascular risk in HIV-infected patients with lipoatrophy

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection is commonly complicated by lipoatrophy, insulin resistance and dyslipidaemia. In HIV-uninfected adults with insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes, thiazolidinediones can lower blood pressure and improve both insulin sensitivity and endothelial function. This study sought to investigate the effects of rosiglitazone on endothelial function and other markers of cardiovascular risk in patients with HIV-related lipoatrophy. METHODS: HIV-infected, lipoatrophic adults receiving antiretroviral therapy were randomized to receive either rosiglitazone 4 mg or matched placebo, twice daily. Percentage flow-mediated forearm arterial dilation (FMD%) was measured at weeks 0, 12, 24 and 48, together with other markers of vascular risk (blood pressure, lipids, glycaemic parameters, adiponectin and leptin). RESULTS: Out of 64 enrolled adults, 44 (69%) attended all visits (23 rosiglitazone, 21 placebo). Relative to placebo, at week 48, rosiglitazone decreased systolic blood pressure (8 mmHg, P=0.03), insulin (3 microIU/ml, P=0.02), insulin resistance (P=0.03) and leptin (0.6 ng/ml, P=0.02), whilst adiponectin was increased (3.3 microg/lml, P<0.0001). However, rosiglitazone increased total cholesterol (49.1 mg/dl, P=0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (23.5 mg/dl, P=0.01) and triglycerides (146 mg/dl, P=0.06). Mean baseline FMD% for the entire cohort was moderately impaired (4.5%). Compared with baseline, mean on-treatment FMD% increased by 0.8% with rosiglitazone and decreased by 0.3% with placebo, (mean difference 1.1%, 95% CI -0.2 to 2.5, P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone has minimal effect on flow-mediated dilation in HIV-infected lipoatrophic adults. However, despite worsening of the lipid profile, the overall effect of rosiglitazone on the cardiovascular risk profile in these subjects was positive.     

Effect of orlistat in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of orlistat, a gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor, on body weight, glycemic control, and cardiovascular risk factors in metformin-treated type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 1-year multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 120 mg orlistat t.i.d. (n = 249) or placebo (n = 254) combined with a reduced-calorie diet was conducted in overweight and obese patients with suboptimal control of type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: After 1 year of treatment, mean (+/-SE) weight loss was greater in the orlistat than in the placebo group (-4.6 +/- 0.3% vs. -1.7 +/- 0.3% of baseline wt, P < 0.001). Orlistat treatment caused a greater improvement in glycemic control than placebo, as evidenced by a greater reduction in serum HbA(1c), adjusted for changes in metformin and sulfonylurea therapy (-0.90 +/- 0.08 vs. -0.61 +/- 0.08, P = 0.014); a greater proportion of patients achieving decreases in HbA(1c) of > or = 0.5 and > or = 1.0% (both P < 0.01); and a greater reduction in fasting serum glucose (-2.0 +/- 0.2 vs. -0.7 +/- 0.2 mmol/l, P = 0.001). Compared with the placebo group, patients treated with orlistat also had greater decreases in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (all P < 0.05). Although more subjects treated with orlistat experienced gastrointestinal side effects than placebo (83 vs. 62%, P < 0.05), more subjects in the placebo group withdrew prematurely from the study than in the orlistat group (44 vs. 35%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Orlistat is a useful adjunctive treatment for producing weight loss and improving glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and blood pressure in obese patients with type 2 diabetes who are being treated with metformin.     

Pioglitazone reduces atherogenic dense LDL particles in nondiabetic patients with arterial hypertension: a double-blind,placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: The oral antidiabetic agent pioglitazone improves insulin sensitivity and glycemic control and appears to lower atherogenic dense LDL in type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance may occur frequently in nondiabetic patients with hypertension. This study is the first to report the effect of pioglitazone on LDL subfractions in normolipidemic, nondiabetic patients with arterial hypertension. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a monocentric, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group comparison of 45 mg pioglitazone (n = 26) and a placebo (n = 28), each given once daily for 16 weeks. Fifty-four moderately hypertensive patients (LDL cholesterol, 2.8 +/- 0.8 mmol/l; HDL cholesterol, 1.1 +/- 0.3 mmol/l; triglycerides, 1.4 mmol/l (median; range 0.5-7.1) were studied at baseline and on treatment. RESULTS: At baseline, dense LDLs were elevated (apolipoprotein [apo]B in LDL-5 plus LDL-6 >250 mg/l) in 63% of all patients. Sixteen weeks of treatment with pioglitazone did not significantly change triglycerides, total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol. However, pioglitazone reduced dense LDLs by 22% (P = 0.024). The mean diameter of LDL particles increased from 19.83 +/- 0.30 to 20.13 +/- 0.33 nm (P < 0.001 vs. placebo), whereas the mean LDL density decreased from 1.0384 +/- 0.0024 to 1.0371 +/- 0.0024 kg/l (P = 0.005 vs. placebo). The effect of pioglitazone on LDL size and density was independent of fasting triglycerides and HDL cholesterol at baseline and of changes in fasting triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of atherogenic dense LDL in nondiabetic, hypertensive patients is similar to patients with type 2 diabetes. Pioglitazone significantly reduces dense LDL independent from fasting triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. The antiatherogenic potential of pioglitazone may thus be greater than that expected from its effects on triglycerides, LDL, and HDL cholesterol alone.     

Beneficial effects of soy phytoestrogen intake in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Phytoestrogen consumption has been shown to reduce risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Type 2 diabetes confers an adverse cardiovascular risk profile particularly in women after menopause. The aim of this study was to determine whether a dietary supplement with soy protein and isoflavones affected insulin resistance, glycemic control, and cardiovascular risk markers in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 32 postmenopausal women with diet-controlled type 2 diabetes completed a randomized, double blind, cross-over trial of dietary supplementation with phytoestrogens (soy protein 30 g/day, isoflavones 132 mg/day) versus placebo (cellulose 30 g/day) for 12 weeks, separated by a 2-week washout period. RESULTS: Compliance with the dietary supplementation was >90% for both treatment phases. When compared with the mean percentage change from baseline seen after 12 weeks of placebo, phytoestrogen supplementation demonstrated significantly lower mean values for fasting insulin (mean +/- SD 8.09 +/- 21.9%, P = 0.006), insulin resistance (6.47 +/- 27.7%, P = 0.003), HbA(1c) (0.64 +/- 3.19%, P = 0.048), total cholesterol (4.07 +/- 8.13%, P = 0.004), LDL cholesterol (7.09 +/- 12.7%, P = 0.001), cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio (3.89 +/- 11.7%, P = 0.015), and free thyroxine (2.50 +/- 8.47%, P = 0.004). No significant change occurred in HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, weight, blood pressure, creatinine, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, androstenedione, and the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis hormones. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that dietary supplementation with soy phytoestrogens favorably alters insulin resistance, glycemic control, and serum lipoproteins in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes, thereby improving their cardiovascular risk profile.     

Comparative efficacy of preprandial or postprandial Humalog Mix75/25 versus glyburide in patients 60 to 80 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: Humalog Mix75/25 (Mix75/25) is a novel premixed insulin containing 75% neutral protamine lispro (an intermediate-acting insulin) and 25% insulin lispro. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare glycemic control and hypoglycemia rates with Mix75/25 versus glyburide, and with preprandial versus postprandial Mix75/25, in patients aged 60 to 80 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus and persistent hyperglycemia on sulfonylurea therapy. METHODS: In this open-label, 16-week, parallel-group study, patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments: glyburide 15 mg/d (or up to the maximum daily dose) or Mix75/25. The Mix75/25 group was randomly subdivided into preprandial (immediately before breakfast and dinner) and postprandial (within 15 minutes after the start of breakfast and dinner) injection subgroups. The primary outcomes were glycemic control and rate of hypoglycemia. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were randomized; 127 completed the study. The change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to end point was significantly greater with Mix75/25 than with glyburide (mean +/- SEM, -1.14% +/- 0.18% vs -0.36% +/- 0.15%, P = 0.001). HbA(1c) changes with preprandial and postprandial Mix75/25 were not significantly different (-1.20% +/- 0.26% vs -1.08% +/- 0.26%, P = 0.748). Fasting blood glucose (BG), 2-hour postprandial BG, and mean daily BG reductions were greater with Mix75/25 than with glyburide (P < 0.001); preprandial and postprandial Mix75/25 administration did not differ significantly with respect to any of these BG variables. The hypoglycemia rate increased with Mix75/25 by 0.17 +/- 0.02 episodes per patient per 30 days, but there was no change with glyburide (P = 0.077). Body weight increased by 1.02 +/- 0.35 kg with Mix75/25 and decreased by 0.85 +/- 0.18 kg with glyburide (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with glyburide, Mix75/25 significantly improved glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, could be administered after meals without compromising glycemic control, and was well tolerated.     

Rosiglitazone improves insulin sensitivity and lowers blood pressure in hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of rosiglitazone on insulin resistance and blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension, classified based on abnormalities of their renin-angiotensin system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 24 hypertensive nondiabetic patients (age 58 +/- 6 years, BMI 30 +/- 5 kg/m2) were studied before and after rosiglitazone treatment. After 2 weeks off antihypertensive medication, subjects received a euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp (40 mU. m(-2). min(-1)) with 6,6-[2H2]glucose infusion, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and blood tests for cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects were then placed on rosiglitazone (4 mg orally b.i.d.) and their usual antihypertensive medications (but not ACE inhibitors) for 16 weeks, and baseline tests were repeated. RESULTS: There was no change in fasting plasma glucose (83 +/- 2 vs. 82 +/- 2 mg/dl, P = 0.60), but fasting insulin decreased (16.1 +/- 1.4 vs. 12.5 +/- 0.9 micro U/ml, P < 0.01). Total glucose disposal during the clamp increased (5.0 +/- 0.4 vs. 5.9 +/- 0.5 mg. kg(-1). min(-1), P < 0.001), with no change in suppression of hepatic glucose output. There were significant decreases in mean 24-h systolic (138 +/- 2 vs. 134 +/- 2 mmHg, P < 0.02) and diastolic (85 +/- 2 vs. 80 +/- 2 mmHg, P < 0.0001) blood pressure, and the decline in systolic blood pressure was correlated with the improvement in insulin sensitivity (r = 0.59, P < 0.005). Triglycerides (135 +/- 16 vs. 89 +/- 8 mg/dl, P < 0.01), LDL cholesterol (129 +/- 6 vs. 122 +/- 8 mg/dl, P = 0.18), and HDL cholesterol (51 +/- 3 vs. 46 +/- 3 mg/dl, P < 0.02) all decreased, with no change in the LDL-to-HDL ratio. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and C-reactive protein also declined significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone treatment of nondiabetic hypertensive patients improves insulin sensitivity, reduces systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and induces favorable changes in markers of cardiovascular risk. Insulin sensitizers may provide cardiovascular benefits when used in the treatment of patients with hypertension.     

Chromium picolinate supplementation attenuates body weight gain and increases insulin sensitivity in subjects with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Chromium picolinate (CrPic) supplementation has been suggested to improve glycemia, but there are conflicting reports on efficacy. We sought to determine the effect of CrPic on insulin sensitivity, glycemic control, and body composition in subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects with type 2 diabetes were evaluated. After baseline, subjects were placed on a sulfonylurea (glipizide gastrointestinal therapeutic system 5 mg/day) with placebo for 3 months. Subjects were then randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either the sulfonylurea plus placebo (n = 12) or the sulfonylurea plus 1,000 microg Cr as CrPic (n = 17) for 6 months. Body composition, insulin sensitivity, and glycemic control were determined at baseline, end of the 3-month single-blind placebo phase, and end of study. RESULTS: Subjects randomized to sulfonylurea/placebo, as opposed to those randomized to sulfonylurea/CrPic, had a significant increase in body weight (2.2 kg, P < 0.001 vs. 0.9 kg, P = 0.11), percent body fat (1.17%, P < 0.001 vs. 0.12%, P = 0.7), and total abdominal fat (32.5 cm(2), P < 0.05 vs. 12.2 cm(2), P < 0.10) from baseline. Subjects randomized to sulfonylurea/CrPic had significant improvements in insulin sensitivity corrected for fat-free mass (28.8, P < 0.05 vs. 15.9, P = 0.4), GHb (-1.16%, P < 0.005 vs. -0.4%, P = 0.3), and free fatty acids (-0.2 mmol/l, P < 0.001 vs. -0.12 mmol/l, P < 0.03) as opposed to sulfonylurea/placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that CrPic supplementation in subjects with type 2 diabetes who are taking sulfonylurea agents significantly improves insulin sensitivity and glucose control. Further, CrPic supplementation significantly attenuated body weight gain and visceral fat accumulation compared with the placebo group.     

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%.     

Improvement of glycemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: comparison of two treatment algorithms using insulin glargine

OBJECTIVE: Large prospective studies have demonstrated that optimum glycemic control is not routinely achieved in clinical practice. Barriers to optimal insulin therapy include hypoglycemia, weight gain, and suboptimal initiation and dose titration. This study compared two treatment algorithms for insulin glargine initiation and titration: algorithm 1 (investigator led) versus algorithm 2 (performed by study subjects). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective, multicenter (n = 611), multinational (n = 59), open-label, 24-week randomized trial in 4,961 (algorithm 1, n = 2,493; algorithm 2, n = 2,468) suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetic subjects. RESULTS: At baseline, mean diabetes duration was 12.3 +/- 7.2 years, and 72% of subjects were pretreated with insulin. At end point, there was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia between algorithms 1 and 2 (0.9 vs. 1.1%). There was a significant reduction in HbA(1c) from 8.9 +/- 1.3 to 7.8 +/- 1.2%, with a greater decrease (P < 0.001) with algorithm 2 (-1.22%) versus algorithm 1 (-1.08%). Fasting blood glucose decreased from 170 to 110 mg/dl, with a greater decrease (P < 0.001) with algorithm 2 (-62 mg/dl) versus algorithm 1 (-57 mg/dl). Mean basal insulin dose increased from 22.9 +/- 15.5 to 43.0 +/- 25.5 IU, with a significant difference (P < 0.003) between algorithm 2 (21.6 IU) and algorithm 1 (18.7 IU). CONCLUSIONS: Glargine is safe and effective in improving glycemic control in a large, diverse population with longstanding type 2 diabetes. A simple subject-administered titration algorithm conferred significantly improved glycemic control with a low incidence of severe hypoglycemia compared with physician-managed titration.