Acarbose improves glycemic control in overweight type 2 diabetic patients insufficiently treated with metformin

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of acarbose as add-on therapy in overweight type 2 patients with diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study adopted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group design. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, subjects were randomized to either acarbose (titrated up to 100 mg b.i.d.) or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA(1c) from baseline to the end of the 24-week treatment period. Change in fasting blood glucose was assessed as a secondary efficacy parameter. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis from baseline to week 24 (81 patients for HbA(1c) and 82 for fasting blood glucose) showed statistically significant differences between acarbose and placebo treatment in HbA(1c) (1.02%; 95% CI 0.543-1.497; P = 0.0001) and fasting blood glucose (1.132 mmol/l; 95% CI 0.056-2.208; P = 0.0395) (adjusted least square means). In all, 18 patients (47%) in the acarbose group were classified as responders with a > or =5% reduction in HbA(1c) (relative to baseline) at the end point compared to 6 (14%) in the placebo group (P = 0.001). The safety profiles were similar for both treatment groups except for the higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects during acarbose therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of acarbose to metformin monotherapy provides an efficacious and safe alternative for glycemic improvement in overweight type 2 patients inadequately controlled by metformin alone.     

Rationale for treatment options for mealtime glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes

While glycemic control is routinely assessed using HbA1c and fasting glucose measures, postprandial glucose (PPG) is also an important contributor of overall glycemia. Furthermore, PPG excursions have been linked to complications of diabetes. This review examines the effects of glucose-lowering therapies (including treatments administered at mealtime) on postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. A PubMed search was conducted to identify clinical studies of treatments for mealtime glucose control in type 2 diabetes. Different treatments may have comparable effects on HbA1c but varying effects on PPG control and glucose fluctuations. Older classes of oral glucose-lowering treatments administered at mealtime to lower PPG include meglitinides and α-glucosidase inhibitors. Injectable therapies, including prandial insulin analogs, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and the amylin analog pramlintide, all effectively target postprandial hyperglycemia. Compared with longer-acting GLP-1RAs, short-acting GLP-1RAs, such as exenatide twice daily and lixisenatide once daily, have a greater effect on PPG control, which is primarily mediated by a more pronounced effect on delayed gastric emptying. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors also reduce postprandial hyperglycemia. To achieve more physiologically normal glycemic control, choice of therapy should ideally aim to address daily glucose fluctuations, including hyperglycemic peaks and hypoglycemic troughs, and long-term glycemic control.     

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.     

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.     

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%.     

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.     

Gycemic control, mealtime glucose excursions, and diabetic complications in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disorder characterized by 2 pathogenic defects, impaired insulin secretion and insulin resistance. The resultant hyperglycemia causes microvascular and macrovascular complications that increase morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus. Optimum glycemic control in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus prevents the development of microvascular disease and, to a lesser extent, macrovascular disease. Prandial hyperglycemia may be an independent risk factor for the development of diabetic complications. This article reviews the pathophysiologic mechanisms of glucose metabolism and describes the results of epidemiological and interventional studies that have demonstrated the association of acute and chronic hyperglycemia with the development of diabetic complications. The American Diabetes Association has defined diagnostic and treatment goals for diabetes mellitus, striving to achieve near-normal glycemic control to delay or prevent the development of diabetic complications. A number of oral antidiabetic agents and insulins are currently available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States. These agents target fasting and postmeal plasma glucose levels to improve glycemic control. Alone or in combination, these agents have enhanced the clinical approaches to treating diabetes mellitus.     

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

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

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.     

Repaglinide/troglitazone combination therapy: improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter open-label clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of repaglinide/troglitazone combination therapy, repaglinide monotherapy, and troglitazone monotherapy in type 2 diabetes that had been inadequately controlled by sulfonylureas, acarbose, or metformin alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 256) who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c > or =7.0%) during previous monotherapy were randomly assigned to receive repaglinide (0.5-4.0 mg at meals), troglitazone (200-600 mg once daily), or a combination of repaglinide (1-4 mg at meals) and troglitazone (200-600 mg once daily). After a 4-6 week washout period, the trial assessed 22 weeks of treatment: 3 weeks (weeks 0-2) of forced titration, 11 weeks of fixed-dose treatment (weeks 3-13), and 8 weeks (weeks 14-21) of titration to maximum dose. Changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values were measured. RESULTS: The combination therapy showed a significant reduction in mean HbA1c values (-1.7%) that was greater than with either type of monotherapy Repaglinide monotherapy resulted in a reduction of HbA1c values that was significantly greater than troglitazone (-0.8 vs. -0.4%) (P < 0.05). Combination therapy was more effective in reducing FPG values (-80 mg/dl) than either repaglinide (-43 mg/dl) or troglitazone (-46 mg/dl) monotherapies. Adverse events were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with repaglinide and troglitazone leads to better glycemic control than monotherapy with either agent alone. Repaglinide monotherapy was more effective in lowering HbA1c levels than troglitazone monotherapy Repaglinide/troglitazone combination therapy was effective and did not show unexpected adverse events.     

Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE--The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between blood glucose level, measured as HbA(1c), and frequency of self-monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Daily self-monitoring is believed to be important for patients treated with insulin or oral agents to detect asymptomatic hypoglycemia and to guide patient and provider behavior toward reaching blood glucose goals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--A national sample of patients with type 2 diabetes was studied in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data on therapy for diabetes, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and HbA(1c) values were obtained by structured questionnaires and by clinical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS--According to the data, 29% of patients treated with insulin, 65% treated with oral agents, and 80% treated with diet alone had never monitored their blood glucose or monitored it less than once per month. Self-monitoring at least once per day was practiced by 39% of those taking insulin and 5-6% of those treated with oral agents or diet alone. For all patients combined, the proportion of patients who tested their blood glucose increased with an increasing HbA(1c) value. However, when examined by diabetes therapy category, there was little relationship between HbA(1c) value and the proportion testing at least once per day or the proportion testing at least once per week. CONCLUSIONS--In this cross-sectional study of patients with type 2 diabetes, the increase in frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose with increasing HbA(1c) value was associated with the higher proportion of insulin-treated patients in higher HbA(1c) categories. Within diabetes therapy categories, the frequency of self-monitoring was not related to glycemic control, as measured by HbA(1c) level.     

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.     

Predictors of glycemic control in insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics that influence glycemic control among insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied all 1,333 eligible members of a large not-for-profit health maintenance organization who responded to a 1997 survey. We tested associations among demographic, treatment, and psychometric variables with mean 1997 HbA1c values. The Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) instrument was used to assess the emotional effect of living with diabetes, and the Short Form 12 Physical Function Scale was used to assess the effect of physical limitations on daily activities. Based on differences between and within treatment groups, we built models to predict glycemic control for subgroups of subjects who were using insulin alone and those who were using insulin in combination with an oral hypoglycemic agent. RESULTS: Younger age, lower BMI, and increased emotional distress about diabetes (according to the PAID scale) were all significant predictors (P < 0.05) of worse glycemic control. However, except among individuals with an HbA1c level of >8.0 who were receiving combination therapy, only approximately 10% of the variance in glycemic control could be predicted by demographic, treatment, or psychometric characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Personal characteristics explain little of the variation in glycemic control in insulin-using adults with type 2 diabetes. Possible explanations are that the reduced complexity of control in type 2 diabetes makes the disease less sensitive to personal factors than control in type 1 diabetes, that health-related behavior is less driven by personal and environmental characteristics among older individuals, or that, in populations exposed to aggressive glycemic control with oral hypoglycemic agents and nurse care managers, personal differences become largely irrelevant.     

Personality correlates of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether traits of normal personality are associated with variations in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study was conducted using data from 105 type 2 diabetic patients in a clinical trial of a stress management intervention. Before treatment assignment, patients completed the NEO Personality Inventory, Revised, which is a questionnaire inventory measuring 5 major domains of normal personality and 30 important traits that define these domains. Glycemic control was assessed by measures of HbA1c and average blood glucose levels based on 7 days of self-monitoring at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Relationships between personality traits and measures of glycemic control were examined by correlation and linear regression models that were adjusted for age, sex, race, duration of diabetes, medication status, and experimental treatment. RESULTS: Lower average blood glucose values at baseline were associated with higher scores for the personality domain of neuroticism and several specific traits including anxiety, angry hostility depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability but were associated with lower scores for the trait of altruism. Results were similar for HbA1c but were not as strong. Follow-up results were similar but were less consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Personality traits may offer new insights into variations in glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing standard management. The relative tendency to experience fewer negative emotions and to focus on the needs of others instead of oneself could prove to be a risk factor for poor glycemic control.     

Cinnamon improves glucose and lipids of people with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether cinnamon improves blood glucose, triglyceride, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol levels in people with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 60 people with type 2 diabetes, 30 men and 30 women aged 52.2 +/- 6.32 years, were divided randomly into six groups. Groups 1, 2, and 3 consumed 1, 3, or 6 g of cinnamon daily, respectively, and groups 4, 5, and 6 were given placebo capsules corresponding to the number of capsules consumed for the three levels of cinnamon. The cinnamon was consumed for 40 days followed by a 20-day washout period. RESULTS: After 40 days, all three levels of cinnamon reduced the mean fasting serum glucose (18-29%), triglyceride (23-30%), LDL cholesterol (7-27%), and total cholesterol (12-26%) levels; no significant changes were noted in the placebo groups. Changes in HDL cholesterol were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that intake of 1, 3, or 6 g of cinnamon per day reduces serum glucose, triglyceride, LDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol in people with type 2 diabetes and suggest that the inclusion of cinnamon in the diet of people with type 2 diabetes will reduce risk factors associated with diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.     

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%.     

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.