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.     

High-intensity resistance training improves glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of high-intensity progressive resistance training combined with moderate weight loss on glycemic control and body composition in older patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sedentary, overweight men and women with type 2 diabetes, aged 60-80 years (n = 36), were randomized to high-intensity progressive resistance training plus moderate weight loss (RT & WL group) or moderate weight loss plus a control program (WL group). Clinical and laboratory measurements were assessed at 0, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: HbA(1c) fell significantly more in RT & WL than WL at 3 months (0.6 +/- 0.7 vs. 0.07 +/- 0.8%, P < 0.05) and 6 months (1.2 +/- 1.0 vs. 0.4 +/- 0.8%, P < 0.05). Similar reductions in body weight (RT & WL 2.5 +/- 2.9 vs. WL 3.1 +/- 2.1 kg) and fat mass (RT & WL 2.4 +/- 2.7 vs. WL 2.7 +/- 2.5 kg) were observed after 6 months. In contrast, lean body mass (LBM) increased in the RT & WL group (0.5 +/- 1.1 kg) and decreased in the WL group (0.4 +/- 1.0) after 6 months (P < 0.05). There were no between-group differences for fasting glucose, insulin, serum lipids and lipoproteins, or resting blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity progressive resistance training, in combination with moderate weight loss, was effective in improving glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes. Additional benefits of improved muscular strength and LBM identify high-intensity resistance training as a feasible and effective component in the management program for older patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Improved glycemic control and enhanced insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetic subjects treated with pioglitazone

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the effects of pioglitazone treatment on glucose and lipid metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 23 diabetic patients (age 30-70 years BMI < 36 kg/m2) who being treated with a stable dose of sulfonylurea were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 11) or pioglitazone (45 mg/day) (n = 12) for 16 weeks. Before and after 16 weeks of treatment, all subjects received a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and hepatic peripheral insulin sensitivity was measured with a two-step euglycemic insulin (40 and 160 mU x min(-1) x m(-2) clamp performed with 3-[3H]glucose and indirect calorimetry HbA1c measured monthly throughout the study period. RESULTS: After 16 weeks of pioglitazone treatment, the fasting plasma glucose (FPG; 184 +/- 15 to 135 +/- 11 mg/dl, P < 0.01), mean plasma glucose during OGTT(293 +/- 12 to 225 +/- 14 mg/dl, P < 0.01), and HbA1c (8.9 +/- 0.3 to 7.2 +/- 0.5%, P < 0.01 ) decreased significantly without change in fasting or glucose-stimulated insulin/C-peptide concentrations. Fasting plasma free fatty acid (FFA; 647 +/- 39 to 478 +/- 49) microEq/l, P < 0.01) and mean plasma FFA during OGTT (485 +/- 30 to 347 +/- 33 microEq/l, P < 0.01) decreased significantly after pioglitazone treatment. Before and after pioglitazone treatment, basal endogenous glucose prodution (EGP) and FPG were strongly correlated (r = 0.67, P < 0.01). EGP during the first insulin clamp step was significantly decreased after pioglitazone treatment (P < 0.05) whereas insulin-stimulated total and nonoxidative glucose disposal during the second insulin clamp was increased (P < 0.01). The change in FPG was related to the change in basal EGP, EGP during the first insulin clamp step, and total glucose disposal during the second insulin clamp step. The change in mean plasma glucose concentration during the OGGTT was strongly related to the change in total body glucose disposl during the second insulin clamp step. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that pioglitazone therapy in type 2 diabetic patients decreases lasting and postprandial plasma glucose levels by improving hepatic and peripheral (muscle) tissue sensitivity to insulin.     

Once- and twice-daily dosing with rosiglitazone improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of rosiglitazone compared with placebo in reducing hyperglycemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 959 patients were randomized to placebo or rosiglitazone (total daily dose 4 or 8 mg) for 26 weeks. The primary measure of efficacy was change in the HbA1c concentration. RESULTS: Rosiglitazone produced dosage-dependent reductions in HbA1c of 0.8, 0.9, 1.1, and 1.5% in the 4 mg o.d., 2 mg b.i.d., 8 mg o.d., and 4 mg b.i.d. groups, respectively, compared with placebo. Clinically significant decreases from baseline in HbA1c were observed in drug-naive patients at all rosiglitazone doses and in patients previously treated with oral monotherapy at rosiglitazone 8 mg o.d. and 4 mg b.i.d. Clinically significant decreases from baseline in HbA1c were also observed with rosiglitazone 4 mg b.i.d. in patients previously treated with combination oral therapy. Approximately 33% of drug-naive patients treated with rosiglitazone achieved HbA1c < or =7% at study end. The proportions of patients with at least one adverse event were comparable among the rosiglitazone and placebo groups. There was no evidence of hepatotoxicity in any treatment group. There were statistically significant increases in weight and serum lipids in all rosiglitazone treatment groups compared with placebo. For LDL and HDL cholesterol, the observed increase appeared to be dose related. CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone at total daily doses of 4 and 8 mg significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and was well tolerated.     

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.     

Immediate feedback of HbA1c levels improves glycemic control in type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate and reliable HbA1c results can be obtained at the time of the office visit by using benchtop analyzers. We tested the hypothesis that immediately available HbA1c results could improve glycemic control by changing physician or patient behavior or both. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 201 type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetic patients attending an academic diabetes center. HbA1c levels, changes in insulin therapy, and use of health care resources were assessed during a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: HbA1c levels decreased significantly at 6 and 12 months in the immediate assay group (-0.57 +/- 1.44 and -0.40 +/- 1.65%, respectively; P < 0.01) but did not change in the control group (-0.11 +/- 0.79 and -0.19 +/- 1.16%, respectively; NS). The changes were similar for both type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients. There were no differences in the rates of hypoglycemic events or use of health care resources. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a controlled randomized trial, the immediate feedback of HbA1c results at the time of patient encounters resulted in a significant improvement of glycemic control at 6-month follow-up and persisted for the 12-month study. The introduction of this assay was positively received by both patients and physicians.     

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 and glibenclamide metabolic effects in naïve type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin

Background and objective: Most antidiabetic agents target only one of several underlying causes of diabetes. The complementary actions of the glinides and the biguanides may give optimal glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of nateglinide plus metformin with glibenclamide plus metformin on glucose and lipid metabolism, and haemodynamic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: We enrolled 248 type 2 diabetic patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive nateglinide (n = 124) or glibenclamide (n = 124), after 6 months of run‐in, in which we titrated nateglinide (starting dose 180 mg/day), glibenclamide (starting dose 7·5 mg/day), and metformin (starting dose 1500 mg/day). The final doses were (mean ± standard deviation), 300 ± 60, 12·5 ± 2·5, and 2500 ± 500 mg/day, respectively. We followed these patients for 1 year after titration. We assessed body mass index (BMI), fasting (FPG) and post‐prandial (PPG) plasma glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), fasting (FPI) and post‐prandial (PPI) plasma insulin, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) index, and lipid profile [total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein‐cholesterol (LDL‐C), high density lipoprotein‐cholesterol (HDL‐C), triglycerides (Tg), apolipoprotein A‐I (Apo A‐I), and apolipoprotein B (Apo B)], systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). All variables were evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months in the run‐in period, and at baseline, and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months for both treatment groups. Results and discussion: Body mass index did not show any significant change during the study. We observed a significant improvement from baseline to 1 year on HbA_1c (P < 0·01 vs. baseline and vs. glibenclamide group, respectively), FPG (P < 0·01 vs. baseline), PPG (P < 0·01 vs. baseline), and on HOMA index (P < 0·05 vs. baseline) in the nateglinide group. In the glibenclamide group, we found significant changes in HbA_1c (P < 0·05 vs. baseline), FPG (P < 0·01 vs. baseline), PPG (P < 0·05 vs. baseline), and HOMA index (P < 0·05 vs. baseline). No significant change was observed in TC, LDL‐C, HDL‐C, Tg, Apo A‐I, Apo B, SBP, DBP and HR in either group after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. These effects of nateglinide and glibenclamide on insulin‐resistance parameters are in agreement with previous reports. Contrarily to previous reports, we did not observe any significant BP change in patients treated with glibenclamide. Although both nateglinide and glibenclamide attenuated PPG and HOMA index, they did not have significant effects on lipid metabolism, as already shown in subjects with type 2 diabetes and good glycemic control. Conclusion: Nateglinide improved glycemic control better than glibenclamide in combination with metformin.     

One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazone versus a sulfonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to assess the 1-year efficacy and safety of the addition of pioglitazone or metformin to existing sulfonylurea (SU) therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind study, patients were randomized to receive either pioglitazone 15 mg (n = 319) or metformin 850 mg (n = 320) and up to 45 mg/day and 2,550 mg/day, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was HbA(1c) at week 52. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and lipid profiles were also measured. RESULTS: HbA(1c) was reduced by 1.20% in the SU plus pioglitazone group and 1.36% in the SU plus metformin group, and fasting plasma glucose was reduced by 2.2 and 2.3 mmol/l in the respective groups. Fasting insulin levels were also reduced (pioglitazone arm -1.3 micro IU/ml; metformin arm -0.8 micro IU/ml). There were no significant between-treatment differences in these three parameters. Pioglitazone addition to SU significantly reduced triglycerides (-16 vs. -9%; P = 0.008) and increased HDL cholesterol (14 vs. 8%; P < 0.001) compared with metformin addition. LDL cholesterol was increased 2% by the addition of pioglitazone and decreased 5% by the addition of metformin to SU (P < 0.001). Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was reduced by 15% in the SU plus pioglitazone group and increased 2% in the SU plus metformin group (P = 0.017). Both combinations were well tolerated with no evidence of hepatic or cardiac toxicity in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically equivalent improvements in glycemic control were observed for both combinations. Compared with metformin plus SU, addition of pioglitazone to SU resulted in a reduction of the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, a small but significant rise in LDL cholesterol, and significantly greater improvements in triglyceride levels and HDL cholesterol levels. Metformin plus SU was associated with a significant reduction in LDL cholesterol. SU plus pioglitazone is an effective and well-tolerated combination regimen that may provide additional beneficial effects for patients with type 2 diabetes.     

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

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of exenatide, a novel incretin mimetic, in hyperglycemic patients with type 2 diabetes unable to achieve glycemic control with metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 30-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in 733 subjects (aged 55 +/- 10 years, BMI 33.6 +/- 5.7 kg/m(2), A1C 8.5 +/- 1.0%; means +/- SD) randomized to 5 microg subcutaneous exenatide b.i.d. (arms A and B) or placebo for 4 weeks. Thereafter, arm A remained at 5 microg b.i.d. and arm B escalated to 10 microg b.i.d. Subjects continued taking their dose of metformin and were randomized to either maximally effective (MAX) or minimum recommended (MIN) doses of sulfonylurea. RESULTS: Week 30 A1C changes from baseline (+/-SE) were -0.8 +/- 0.1% (10 microg), -0.6 +/- 0.1% (5 microg), and +0.2 +/- 0.1% (placebo; adjusted P < 0.0001 vs. placebo), yielding placebo-adjusted reductions of -1.0% (10 microg) and -0.8% (5 microg). In the evaluable population, exenatide-treated subjects were more likely to achieve A1C < or =7% than placebo-treated subjects (34% [10 microg], 27% [5 microg], and 9% [placebo]; P < 0.0001). Both exenatide arms demonstrated significant weight loss (-1.6 +/- 0.2 kg from baseline each exenatide arm, -0.9 +/- 0.2 kg placebo; P < or = 0.01 vs. placebo). Mild or moderate nausea was the most frequent adverse event. The incidence of mild/moderate hypoglycemia was 28% (10 microg), 19% (5 microg), and 13% (placebo) and appeared lower with MIN than with MAX sulfonylurea treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide significantly reduced A1C in patients with type 2 diabetes unable to achieve adequate glycemic control with maximally effective doses of combined metformin-sulfonylurea therapy. This improvement in glycemic control was associated with no weight gain and was generally well tolerated.     

Stress management improves long-term glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: There is conflicting evidence regarding the utility of stress management training in the treatment of diabetes. The few studies that have shown a therapeutic effect of stress management have used time-intensive individual therapy. Unfortunately, widespread use of such interventions is not practical. The aim of the present investigation is to determine whether a cost-effective, group-based stress management training program can improve glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes and to determine whether a particular subset of patients is more likely to get positive results. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to undergo a five-session group diabetes education program with or without stress management training. Participants (n = 108) were followed for 1 year, during which HbA(1c) tests and questionnaires assessing perceived stress, anxiety, and psychological health were administered at regular intervals to evaluate treatment effects. RESULTS: Stress management training was associated with a small (0.5%) but significant reduction in HbA(1c). Compliance with the treatment regimen decreased over time but was similar to that seen in patients receiving stress management for other reasons in the clinic. Trait anxiety (a measure of stable individual differences in anxiety proneness) did not predict response to treatment, showing that highly anxious patients did not derive more benefit from training. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicate that a cost-effective, group stress management program in a "real-world" setting can result in clinically significant benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes.     

A randomized trial of sibutramine in the management of obese type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of sibutramine (15 and 20 mg/day) on weight, metabolic control, and blood pressure in metformin-treated obese subjects with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 12-month randomized prospective placebo-controlled double-blind study was performed. It included 21 primary and secondary care centers in England, Canada, France, and Belgium. A total of 195 subjects (44% male) with type 2 diabetes and a BMI >27 kg/m(2) were studied. Changes were assessed in weight, blood pressure and resting heart rate, HbA(1c), fasting glucose, and lipids. RESULTS: Sibutramine induced significant weight loss (P < 0.001) with both 15 mg/day (5.5 +/- 0.6 kg at 12 months) and 20 mg/day (8.0 +/- 0.9 kg), whereas placebo did not (0.2 +/- 0.5 kg). Weight loss > or = 10% was achieved by 14 and 27% of subjects receiving 15 and 20 mg, respectively, but by none given placebo. Glycemic control improved in parallel with weight loss, and subjects who lost > or = 10% weight showed significant decreases in both HbA(1c) (1.2 +/- 0.4%, P < 0.0001) and fasting plasma glucose (1.8 mmol/l, P < 0.001). HDL cholesterol increased slightly with the higher dose, whereas plasma triglycerides fell with both doses, especially in subjects with weight loss of > or = 10% (a 29% decrease, P < 0.01). Treatment was generally well tolerated. Sibutramine treatment raised sitting diastolic blood pressure by > or = 5 mmHg in a higher proportion of patients than did placebo (43% with 15 mg/day vs. 25% with placebo, P < 0.05), but this effect was less evident in subjects who had a weight loss of > or = 10% weight. Pulse rate increased significantly more with sibutramine, being > or = 10 bpm higher in 42% of treated patients versus 17% with placebo (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Sibutramine can be an effective adjunct to metformin treatment in selected obese type 2 diabetic subjects and improves metabolic control in individuals who lose weight.     

A prospective study of glycemic control during holiday time in type 2 diabetic patients

OBJECTIVE: In the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study, A1C increased from 1.2 to 1.7% and fasting plasma glucose from 1.0 to 2.8 mmol/l over 10 years in type 2 diabetic patients. It is not known whether the blood glucose increase observed in long-term studies of type 2 diabetes results from small, steady increases throughout the year or from increases during discrete periods. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To estimate the variation of actual glycemic control and its relation to holiday times, we measured A1C and fructosamine in 110 patients with type 2 diabetes. These measurements were performed four times at intervals of 4-6 weeks; therefore, glycemic change was determined for three periods: preholiday period (from between November 13 and December 20 to between December 20 and January 20), holiday period (from between December 20 and January 20 to between January 28 and February 28), and postholiday period (from between January 28 and February 28 to between March 1 and April 10). A final measurement of A1C was obtained from 90 subjects in the following December or January. RESULTS: The mean A1C increased, but not significantly, during the preholiday (increase 0.135 +/- 0.723%, P = 0.055) and holiday (increase 0.094 +/- 0.828%, P = 0.239) periods. The mean A1C decreased, but not significantly, during the postholiday period (decrease 0.022 +/- 0.588%, P = 0.695). Altogether, the A1C change during these three periods increased significantly (increase 0.207 +/- 0.943%, P = 0.024). The mean fructosamine increased significantly during the preholiday period (increase 0.151 +/- 0.460 mmol/l, P = 0.001), but there was no significant change during the holiday period (increase 0.057 +/- 0.593 mmol/l, P = 0.321). However, fructosamine decreased significantly during the postholiday period (decrease 0.178 +/- 0.448 mmol/l, P < 0.001). Altogether, the fructosamine changes during the study periods showed no significant difference (increase 0.030 +/- 0.566 mmol/l, P = 0.579). Between March or early April and the following December or January, there was no additional change in A1C (decrease 0.009 +/- 1.039%, P = 0.935) for the 90 participants who returned for follow-up treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates an influence of winter holidays on the glycemic control of patients who have type 2 diabetes, and this poor glycemic control might not be reversed during the summer and autumn months. Therefore, the cumulative effects of the yearly A1C gain during the winter holidays are likely to contribute to the substantial increase in A1C that occurs every year among type 2 diabetic individuals.     

初发2型糖尿病患者血糖控制与血小板参数的相关性研究

目的 探讨初发2型糖尿病患者血糖控制与血小板参数的相关性.方法 检测90例住院或门诊初发2型糖尿病患者和90名健康体检者的血压和血小板参数,包括血小板计数(PLT)、血小板平均体积(MPV)和血小板体积分布宽度(PDW)、空腹血糖(FPG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、甘油三酯(TG)、总胆固醇(TC)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)等指标,对治疗3个月后HbA1c达标(≤7%)的2型糖尿病患者重复测定上述参数.结果 (1)初发2型糖尿病组FBG、TC、TG、MPV及PDW均高于健康对照组(t值分别为6.405、2.069、2.633、2.178、2.103,P值分别为0.001、0.046、0.010、0.031、0.043).(2)HbA1c＞7%的糖尿病患者48例,FBG、HbA1c、TC、TG、MPV及PDW均高于HbA1c≤7%组(t值分别为5.691、2.013、2.345、3.467、4.016、2.893,P值分别为0.001、0.038、0.029、0.013、0.004、0.026);糖尿病患者MPV与HbA1c(r=0.389,P=0.020)、PDW(r=0.324,P=0.010)呈正相关;与FBG(r=0.098,P=0.370)、收缩压(r=0.060,P=0.587)及舒张压(r=0.046,P=0.784)均无相关性.(3)HbA1c达标的糖尿病患者36例,控制血糖后FBG、HbA1c、TG、MPV、PDW较治疗前均有下降(t值分别为5.591、2.301、2.410、2.204、2.105,P值分别为0.001、0.031、0.023、0.035、0.041).结论 初发2型糖尿病患者的血小板活性增强,控制血糖可降低血小板活性,对防治糖尿病血管并发症有益.

Abstract：

Objective To study the relationship between glycemic control and platelet parameters in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients. Methods Ninety patients newly diagnosed as type 2 diabetes and 90 healthy people were enrolled into the study. Their blood pressure, platelet parameters, including blood platelets count (PLT), mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet distribution width (PDW), fasting blood glucose (FPG),HbA1c ,triglyceride ( TG ), total cholesterol ( TC ), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C ), low density lipoprotein cholesterol(LDL-C) were examined and the data were analyzed. Results The level of FBG, TG, TC,MPV and PDW of patients newly diagnosed as type 2 diabetic were significantly higher than those of healthy people (t =6. 405,2. 069,2. 633,2. 178,2. 103 ;P =0. 001,0. 046,0. 010,0. 031 and 0. 043 respectively); The level of FBG, HbA1c, TC, TG, MPV and PDW in the diabetic patients, with their HbA1 c ＞ 7%, were significantly higher than the patients with HbA1c ≤ 7 % ( t = 5.691,2.013,2. 345,3. 467,4. 016,2. 893, P = 0. 001, 0. 038,0. 029,0. 013, 0. 004, 0. 026 ). There were positive correlations between MPV and HbA1c ( r = 0. 389 P =0. 020), MPV and PDW ( r = 0. 324 P = 0. 01 ) in diabetic patients, but no correlation between MPV and FBG,MPV and Systolic BP or MPV and Diastolic BP (Ps ＞ 0. 05 ). The level of FBG, HbA1c, TG, MPV and PDW decreased significantly in the diabetic patients with HbA1c ＞ 7% after treatment (t = 5. 591,2. 301,2. 410,2.204,2.105; P=0.001,0.031,0.023,0.035,0.041, respectively).Conclusion The platelet activity enhanced in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients, platelet activity can be recovered through glycemic control,which may prevent the role of platelet in diabetes complications in these patients.     

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%.