Efficacy and safety profile of glimepiride in Mexican American Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized,placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Mexican Americans, the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, have a 2- to 3-fold higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus relative to the non-Hispanic white population. It is estimated that 10% of Mexican Americans >or=20 years of age have diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glimepiride, a long-acting sulfonylurea, as an adjunct to diet/exercise in Mexican Americans with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Mexican Americans with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, defined as a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level between 120 mg/dL and 225 mg/dL and glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) values between 8.0% and 10.5%, after >or=3 months of diet/exercise were enrolled. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio (using the lowest available treatment assignment number when eligibility was established) to receive 14 weeks of glimepiride or matching placebo once daily with continued diet/exercise. The starting glimepiride dose was 1 mg, with titration to 2 mg and 4 mg for FPG levels >120 mg/dL. The primary efficacy variable was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to study end point. Secondary efficacy variables were HbA(1c) response (rated as excellent, good, or marginal) and changes in FPG, fasting insulin, fibrinogen, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) levels from baseline to study end point. The tolerability of glimepiride in this study population was determined by evaluating adverse events, hypoglycemic episodes, and physical examination as well as laboratory findings. All analyses were performed on an intent-to-treat basis. A per-protocol analysis also was conducted to support the primary efficacy analysis. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized to treatment with glimepiride (n = 48) or placebo ((n = 22). The glimepiride and placebo groups were similar with respect to mean (SE) age (48.4 [11.7] and 50.7 [10.0] years, respectively) and sex (56.3% [27/48] and 50.0% [11/22] were male, respectively). However, the glimepiride group had a higher mean body weight (83.3 [17.0] vs 76.3 [18.5] kg) and a significantly higher mean fasting insulin level (23.8 [17.7] vs 17.8 [19.7] microU/mL; P = 0.031). The mean (SE) HbA(1c) values at study end point were 7.8% (0.2%) and 9.9% (0.7%) in patients receiving glimepiride and placebo, respectively. The adjusted mean difference in HbA(1c) reduction from baseline to end point was statistically significant in favor of glimepiride (-1.8% [0.4%]; P < 0.001). More pronounced HbA(1c) impairment at baseline was associated with greater glimepiride-placebo differences in HbA(1c) reduction. Glimepiride-treated patients also achieved a significantly greater improvement in FPG, with an adjusted mean (SE) treatment difference of -46.7 (16.7) mg/dL (P = 0.007). Glimepiride did not appear to affect fibrinogen and PAI-1 levels but was associated with significantly greater mean increases in fasting insulin (10.2 vs -2.1 microU/mL; P = 0.002) and body weight (2.3 vs 2.1 kg; P < 0.001) compared with placebo. Glimepiride was well tolerated, with an adverse-event profile similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that once-daily glimepiride plus diet/exercise was effective in Mexican Americans with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet/exercise alone. It appeared to be well tolerated in the population studied. More weight gain was seen with glimepiride compared with placebo. Given the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes among Mexican Americans, further clinical studies of glimepiride and other glucose-lowering therapies are needed in this ethnic subset.     

Effects of 1 year of treatment with pioglitazone or rosiglitazone added to glimepiride on lipoprotein (a) and homocysteine concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Although the metabolic effects of the thiazolidinediones have been well studied, there is a lack of comparative data on their effects on certain cardiovascular risk factors, such as elevated plasma levels of lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) and homocysteine (Hcy). OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone added to glimepiride on a range of lipid parameters, focusing on Lp(a) and Hcy, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the metabolic syndrome. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind study in patients with type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome (hypertension [>or=130/85 mm Hg]) and triglyceridemia (>or=150 mg/dL). In addition to glimepiride 4 mg/d, patients received pioglitazone 15 mg QD or rosiglitazone 4 mg QD for 1 year. The primary efficacy variables were change from baseline in body mass index (BMI), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), Lp(a), and Hey. Secondary efficacy measures were changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) concentrations, fasting and postprandial insulin concentrations (FPI and PPI, respectively), the Homeostasis Model Assessment index, and the lipid profile (total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides). All these parameters were measured after a 12-hour fast every 3 months for 1 year. Tolerability was assessed based on reported adverse events and laboratory abnormalities at each study visit. RESULTS: Ninety-one white patients with type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome were enrolled, and 87 completed the study (43 men, 44 women; mean [SD] age, 53 [6] years; mean weight, 68.4 [3.3] kg). Mean baseline values for BMI and HbA(1c) were 24.3 (0.8) kg/m(2) and 8.1 % (0.8 %), respectively. At the end of 1 year, both treatment groups had significant increases from baseline in BMI (4.9% glimepiride + pio glitazone, 6.2% glimepiride + rosiglitazone; P < 0.05). Glimepiride + pioglitazone was associated with the following percent improvements from baseline in measures of glycemic control: -17.1% in HbA(1c), -19.3% in FPG, -17.8% in PPG, -40.1% in FPI, and -22.6% in PPI (all, P < 0.01). The corresponding percent improvements from baseline with glimepiride + rosiglitazone were -16.3%, -19.9%, -15.0%, -44.8%, and -22.1% (all, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in any of these parameters. The pioglitazone group had significant improvements from baseline in TC (-11.1%), LDL-C (-12.0%), HDL-C (15.0%), and triglycerides (-22.4%) [corrected] (all, P < 0.05), whereas the rosiglitazone group had significant increases in TC (14.9%), LDL-C (16.5%), and triglycerides (17.9%) (all, P < 0.05); the difference between pioglitazone and rosiglitazone was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The change from baseline in Lp(a) was significant in the pioglitazone group, both relative to baseline and compared with the rosiglitazone group (-19.7% vs 0.5%, respectively; P < 0.05 vs baseline and vs rosiglitazone). Changes from baseline in Hey were significant in both the pioglitazone and rosiglitazone groups (-20.2% and -25.0%, respectively; P < 0.05), with no significant difference between groups. Both treatments were well tolerated, and no patients had significant changes in transaminases. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome, the combinations of glimepiride with pioglitazone and glimepiride with rosiglitazone produced significant improvements in measures of glycemic control, plasma lipids, and homocysteinemia. One year of treatment with the pioglitazone combination was associated with significantly reduced plasma Lp(a) levels compared with the rosiglitazone combination.     

Triple therapy with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by metformin and a thiazolidinedione: results of a 30-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that was inadequately controlled with a combination of immediate- or extended-release metformin and a thiazolidinedione. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 2-arm study consisting of a 4-week stabilization and eligibility period and a 26-week treatment period. Patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for a minimum of 1 year received glimepiride (titrated sequentially from 2 to 4 to 8 mg/d over 6 weeks, followed by 20 weeks of maintenance therapy) or placebo in combination with an established regimen of immediate- or extended release metformin and rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline. The safety analysis was based on the incidence of hypo glycemia, adverse events, and laboratory abnormalities. Changes in lipid levels (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides) were evaluated, and health-related quality of life was assessed based on scores on the Diabetes Care Profile (DCP) and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HU13). RESULTS: Of 170 randomized patients, 159 were included in the efficacy analysis and 168 were included in the safety analysis. Demographic variables were similar at baseline between the glimepiride and placebo groups (mean age, 56.5 and 56.4 years, respectively; percent men/women, 61.0%/39.0% and 62.3%/37.7%; weight, 100.9 and 96.3 kg). HbA(1c) was significantly improved at end point with glimepiride combination therapy compared with placebo (mean [SE], -1.31% [0.08] vs -0.33% [0.08], respectively; P < 0.001). The majority of patients (62.2%) who received glimepiride achieved an HbA(1c) value of < or =7%, compared with 26.0% of patients receiving placebo (P < 0.001 between groups). At end point, the adjusted mean differences between treatments significantly favored the glimepiride combination in terms of fasting plasma glucose (-37.4 [4.0] mg/dL; P < 0.001), fasting insulin (4.06 [1.69] microIU/mL; P < 0.03), and C-peptide (124.5 [35.9] pmol/L; P < 0.001). The adjusted mean changes in body mass index from baseline to end point were 1.26 (0.16) kg/m(2) with glimepiride and 0.17 (0.16) kg/m(2) with placebo (P < 0.001). Similarly, the mean change in weight was greater with glimepiride than with placebo (3.76 [0.54] vs 0.45 [0.52] kg; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in lipid levels between groups. Clinically significant adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, and rates of severe hypoglycemia were similar between treatment groups. The overall incidence of hypoglycemia, however, was 51.2% in the glimepiride group and 8.3% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). In general, there was no significant difference between treatment groups with respect to scores on the DCP or HUI3 over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with type 2 diabetes that was not adequately controlled by dual combination therapy with metformin and a thiazolidinedione, the addition of glimepiride improved glycemic control compared with placebo with an acceptable tolerability profile. Although there were significantly more episodes of hypoglycemia with triple therapy than with dual therapy and placebo, the risk for severe hypoglycemia was low.     

Metabolic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with diabetes and metabolic syndrome treated with glimepiride: a twelve-month, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial

BACKGROUND: Glimepiride is approved as monotherapy and in combination with metformin or with insulin, whereas the combination of glimepiride with other antihyperglycemic drugs is under investigation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the differential effect on glucose and lipid variables and tolerability of the combination of glimepiride plus pioglitazone or rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and metabolic syndrome. METHODS: This 12-month, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial was conducted at 3 study sites in Italy. We assessed patients with type 2 DM (duration, > or =6 months) and with metabolic syndrome. All patients were required to have poor glycemic control with, or to have experienced > or =1 adverse effect (AE) with, diet and oral hypoglycemic agents such as sulfonylureas or metformin, both given up to the maximum tolerated dose. All patients received a fixed oral dose of glimepiride, 4 mg/d divided into 2 doses, self-administered for 12 months. Patients also were randomized to receive oral pioglitazone (15 mg once daily) (G + P group) or oral rosiglitazone (4 mg once daily) (G + R group), self-administered for 12 months. We assessed body mass index (BMI), glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)], fasting and postprandial plasma glucose and insulin levels [FPG, PPG, FPI, and PPI, respectively], and homeostasis model assessment index), lipid profile (total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides [TG]), and lipoprotein variables (apolipoprotein [apo] A-I and apo B) at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of treatment. Treatment tolerability was assessed at each study visit using a thorough interview of patients, and comparisons of clinical and laboratory values to baseline levels. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients were enrolled in the study; 87 patients completed it (G + P group: 24 women, 21 men; mean [SD] age, 53 [6] years; G + R group: 20 women, 22 men; mean [SD] age, 54 [5] years). Patients in the G + P and G + R groups experienced significant increases in mean BMI at 12 months compared with baseline (4.92% and 6.17%, respectively; both, P < 0.05). The combination of glimepiride with pioglitazone or rosiglitazone significantly improved glycemic control in the study patients. At 12 months, we observed a 1.3% improvement in mean values for plasma HbA(1c) concentration (P < 0.01) 19.3% in FPG (P < 0.01), 16.3% in PPG (P < 0.01), 42.4% in FPI ), and 23.3% in PPI (P <0.05); no significant differences were found between treatment groups. Although the G + P group experienced a significant improvement at 12 months in almost all variables of lipid metabolism from baseline (TC, - 11%; LDL-C, -12%; HDL-C, 15%; and apo B, - 10.6% [all, P , 0.05]), the G + R group experienced a significant increase in mostly the lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease (TC, 14.9%; LDL-C, 16.5%; TG, 17.9%; and apo B, 10.3% [all, P , 0.05]). Overall, no statistically significant changes in plasma aminotransferase activities were observed. Of the 87 patients who completed the study, 6.7% (3/45) of patients in the G + P group and 11.9% (5/42) of patients in the G + R group had transient, mild to moderate AEs that did not cause withdrawal from the trial. CONCLUSION: In this study of patients with type 2 DM and metabolic syndrome who did not respond adequately to, or experienced AEs with, diet and either a sulfonylurea or metformin previously, the combination of glimepiride plus pioglitazone was associated with a significant improvement in lipid and lipoprotein variables, whereas the combination of glimepiride plus rosiglitazone appears to not have had any clinically significant effect on lipid metabolism.     

A 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with rosiglitazone and sulfonylurea in African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sulfonylurea monotherapy

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is twice as prevalent in African Americans and Hispanic Americans as in non-Hispanic whites. However, the effectiveness and safety profile of rosiglitazone maleate used as combination therapy with sulfonylureas in the management of diabetes and its effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) biomarkers/parameters have not been studied in these populations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of the addition of rosiglitazone to a regimen of glyburide once daily in African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes previously inadequately controlled with sulfonylurea monotherapy. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 38 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged < or =21 years, had type 2 diabetes, a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level > or =140 mg/dL, and a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) value > or =7.5%, and had been treated with sulfonylurea monotherapy for at least 2 months before screening. Patients were assigned to receive treatment with glyburide 10 or 20 mg/d plus rosiglitazone 8 mg (GLY+RSG) or placebo (GLY+PBO) PO (tablets) QD for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in HbA(1c) after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included change in FPG; proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) targets (<7.0% and <6.5%); and changes in biomarkers for CVD risk, including C-reactive protein (CRP), plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-I activity, fibrinogen, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) antigen, von Willebrand factor (vWF), soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule (sVCAM), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A 2 activity, and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). Tolerability was assessed using physical examination, including vital-sign measurement, clinical laboratory tests, and adverse event (AE) reports collected at each study visit. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients (101 African American and 144 Hispanic American) were enrolled. Demographic characteristics were comparable between the GLY+RSG and GLY+PBO groups: mean (SD) age (52 [11.9] vs 53 [10.4] years), HbA(1c) (9.2% [1.3%] vs 9.4% [1.4%]), sex (men/women, 45.3%/54.7% vs 48.3%/51.7%), race (African American/Hispanic American, 43.6%/56.4% vs 37.9%/62.1%), and mean (SD) weight (86.3 [18.8] vs 88.3 [19.4] kg). In the overall study population, treatment with GLY+RSG was associated with a significantly greater mean (95% CI) reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) compared with GLY+PBO (between-group Delta, -1.4% [-1.7% to -1.1%]; P < 0.001). When assessed by ethnicity, HbA(1c) values were significantly reduced with GLY+RSG compared with GLY+PBO in African American patients (between-group Delta, -1.4%) and in Hispanic American patients (between-group Delta, -1.5%) (both, P < 0.001), as were FPG levels (between-group Deltas, -3.1 mmol/L [57 mg/dL] and -3.8 mmol/L [-69 mg/dL], respectively; both, P < 0.001). With GLY+RSG, 9151 (17.6%) African American patients and 17/66 (25.8%) Hispanic American patients achieved HbA(1c) <7%, compared with 2/44 (4.5%) and 1/72 (1.4%) patients, respectively, who achieved this goal with GLY+PBO. Homeostasis model assessment estimates of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function were significantly improved with GLY+RSG compared with GIX+PBO (between-group Deltas, 29.3% and 78.4%, respectively; both, P < 0.001). With regard to CVD biomarkers, there were potentially deleterious changes compared with baseline in the GLY+PBO group for CRP (+29.4%; P = 0.042), PAI-1 activity (+27.0%; P = 0.006), fibrinogen (+15.7%; P = 0.007), and sVCAM (+7.0%; P = 0.035), whereas there were no significant increases in these factors in the GLY+RSG group. In the GLY+RSG group, there were significant improvements in tPA (-17.8%; P < 0.001), vWF (-11.3%; P = 0.019), and UACR (-17.2%; P = 0.028) over 24 weeks' treatment, whereas there were no significant changes in any of these factors in the GLY+PBO group. As a result, significant treatment effects were observed for CRP (-29.2%; P = 0.019), tPA (-18.4%; P < 0.001), vWF (-12.9%; P < 0.015), and UACR (-26.7%; P = 0.006) with GLY+RSG compared with GLY+PBO. The most frequently reported AEs with GLY+RSG were edema and weight increase (both 121121 [9.9%] patients) and with GLY+PBO were upper respiratory tract infection (18/124 [14.5%] patients). AEs were reported in 83/121 (68.6%) patients in the GLY+RSG group, of which 6/121 (5.0%) were assessed as severe, compared with 70/124 ( 56.5 % ) patients who received GLY+PBO, of which 31124 (2.4%) were assessed as severe. CONCLUSION: Add-on rosiglitazone administered for 24 weeks was effective and well tolerated in these African American and Hispanic American patients with type 2 diabetes previously inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea monotherapy.     

Metabolic effects of pioglitazone in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus whose disease is not adequately controlled with insulin therapy: results of a six-month, randomized, double-blind, prospective, multicenter, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a progressive disease. Initial therapy begins with dietary and lifestyle modifications. However, as the disease progresses, glycemic control becomes more difficult to attain, often requiring > or =1 oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM), and finally the addition of insulin to the OAMs and insulin monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the effect of pioglitazone 30 mg plus insulin (PIO + INS) versus placebo plus insulin (PLB + INS) on glycemic control, the serum lipid profile, and selected cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 DM whose disease was inadequately controlled with insulin therapy alone despite efforts to intensify such treatment. METHODS: This was a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, prospective, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients with type 2 DM and a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) value > or =7.5% who were using insulin (with or without OAMs) entered a 3-month insulin intensification phase to achieve blood glucose targets with insulin monotherapy. After insulin intensification, those patients with HbA(1c) values > or =7.0% were randomized to PIO + INS or PLB + INS. The primary end point was the change in HbA(1c) from baseline. Cardiovascular risk markers (highly sensitive C-reactive protein [hs CRP] and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 [PAI-1]) were measured at baseline and end point. RESULTS: Of the 289 patients randomized to treatment (mean [SD] age, 58.9 [7.1] years; 164 women, 125 men), 142 received PIO + INS and 147 received PLB + INS. A total of 263 patients completed the study. After 6 months, PIO + INS reduced mean HbA(1c) (-0.69%; P < 0.002) and mean fasting plasma glucose ([FPG] -1.45 mmol/L; P < 0.002) from baseline. PLB + INS produced no significant changes in HbA(1c) or FPG. The between-treatment differences for HbA(1c) (-0.55%; P < 0.002) and FPG (-1.80 mmol/L; P < 0.002) occurred despite a reduction of insulin dose in the PIO + INS group from baseline (-0.16 U/d . kg; P < 0.002). Significant between-group differences were observed for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.13 mM; P < 0.002), triglycerides (ratio of geometric mean [PIO/PLB], 0.871; P < 0.01), atherogenic index of plasma (-0.11; P < 0.002), PAI-1 (-5.10 U/mL; P < 0.001), and hs CRP (-1.47 mg/L; P < 0.05). The rate of clinical and biochemical hypoglycemia (blood glucose <2.8 mmol/L) did not differ statistically between treatment groups, but reported incidences of subjective hypoglycemia occurred more often with PIO + INS than with PLB + INS (90 vs 75; P < 0.05). Edema was more common with PIO + INS than with PLB + INS (20 vs 5 instances, respectively), as was gain (mean [SEM]) in body weight (4.05 [4.03] vs 0.20 [2.92] kg, respectively). CONCLUSION: Adding pioglitazone to insulin in these study patients with type 2 DM whose disease was inadequately controlled with insulin monotherapy further improved their glycemic control.     

Combined therapy with insulin lispro Mix 75/25 plus metformin or insulin glargine plus metformin: a 16-week, randomized, open-label, crossover study in patients with type 2 diabetes beginning insulin therapy

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess glycemic response to a mixture of 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension and 25% insulin lispro (Mix 75/25) BID plus metformin versus insulin glargine QD plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Adults new to insulin therapy were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, prospective, open-label, crossover study with 16 weeks on each treatment. Variables included glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), hypoglycemia rate, fasting blood glucose (FBG), 2-hour postprandial blood glucose (ppBG), and rise in blood glucose after meals. RESULTS: One hundred five patients (mean age, 55 years) were randomized. There was no difference in baseline mean values for either treatment sequence group for body mass index, duration of DM, or HbA(1c). Ninety-five patients completed the study and 67 were included in the efficacy analysis. Mix 75/25 was associated with lower mean (SD) HbA(1c) at end point (7.4% [1.1%] vs 7.8% [1.1%]; P = 0.002). More patients using Mix 75/25 achieved target HbA(1c) < or =7.0% (42% [30/71] vs 18% [13/71]; P < 0.001). With Mix 75/25, the mean (SD) 2-hour ppBG was similar after lunch but lower after breakfast (156.4 [43.6] vs 171.1 [44.9] mg/dL; P = 0.012) and dinner (164.8 [42.5] mg/dL vs 193.8 [51.0] mg/dL; P < 0.001), although FBG was higher (139.3 [36.6] mg/dL vs 123.9 [34.9] mg/dL; P < 0.001). Rise in ppBG was lower with Mix 75/25 after breakfast (16.9 [47.0] mg/dL vs 47.4 [34.8] mg/dL; P < 0.001) and dinner (14.2 [44.1] mg/dL vs 45.9 [41.3] mg/dL; P < 0.001). Gain in mean (SD) body weight was greater with Mix 75/25 than insulin glargine (2.3 [4.0] kg vs 1.6 [4.0] kg; P = 0.006). For all randomized patients, mean (SD) hypoglycemia rates were lower with insulin glargine (0.68 [1.38] vs 0.39 [1.24] episodes/patient per 30 days; P = 0.041), although nocturnal hypoglycemia was similar. CONCLUSION: In this study population, Mix 75/25 plus metformin was associated with lower HbA(1c) than insulin glargine plus metformin, smaller rise in ppBG after breakfast and dinner, and higher proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) < or =7.0%, with a slight increase in overall (but not nocturnal) hypoglycemia.     

Pioglitazone hydrochloride in combination with metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. The Pioglitazone 027 Study Group

BACKGROUND: Their complimentary mechanisms of action suggest that a combination of pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin may have clinically beneficial effects in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and tolerability of pioglitazone in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a 16-week, double-blind study with the option of enrollment in a separate open-ended, open-label study. It included patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] > or =8.0%, fasting C-peptide >1.0 ng/mL) who had been receiving a stable regimen of metformin for > or =30 days. Patients with diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, or neuropathy; impaired liver or kidney function; or unstable cardiovascular or cerebrovascular conditions were excluded. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily pioglitazone 30 mg + metformin or placebo + metformin. Patients in the open-label extension received pioglitazone 30 mg (with optional titration to 45 mg) + metformin. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized to treatment (168 pioglitazone + metformin, 160 placebo + metformin), and 249 completed the study. Of these, 154 elected to enter the open-label extension study. Patients' mean age was 56 years; most (84%) were white and slightly more than half (57%) were male. Patients receiving piogli- tazone 30 mg + metformin had statistically significant mean decreases in HbA1c (-0.83%) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (-37.7 mg/dL) compared with placebo + metformin (P < or = 0.05). Decreases in FPG levels occurred as early as the fourth week of therapy, the first time point at which FPG was measured. The pioglitazone + metformin group had significant mean percentage changes in levels of triglycerides (-18.2%) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (+8.7%) compared with placebo + metformin (P < or = 0.05). Mean percentage increases were noted in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (7.7%, pioglitazone + metformin; 11.9%, placebo + metformin) and total cholesterol (4.1%, pioglitazone + metformin; 1.1%, placebo + metformin), with no significant differences between groups. In the extension study, patients treated with open-label pioglitazone + metformin for 72 weeks had mean changes from baseline of -1.36% in HbA1c and -63.0 mg/dL in FPG. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. Throughout the study, no patient in either treatment group had an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) value > or =3 times the upper limit of normal, a commonly used marker of potential liver damage. Thus, no evidence of drug-induced hepatotoxicity or drug-induced elevations in serum ALT was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, pioglitazone + metformin significantly improved HbA1c and FPG levels, with positive effects on serum lipid levels and no evidence of drug-induced hepatotoxicity. These effects were maintained for >1.5 years, including the open-label extension.     

Long-term effect of glimepiride and rosiglitazone on non-conventional cardiovascular risk factors in metformin-treated patients affected by metabolic syndrome: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial

We evaluated the effect of glimepiride plus metformin and rosiglitazone plus metformin on glucose, and on cardiovascular risk parameters such as lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) and homocysteine (HCT) in patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Ninety-nine patients in the multicentre, randomized, double-blind study took metformin (1500 mg/day) plus glimepiride (2 mg/day) or rosiglitazone (4 mg/day) for 12 months. Changes in body mass index, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), Lp(a) and HCT were primary efficacy variables. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG) and homeostasis model assessment index were also used to assess efficacy. On average, HbA1c decreased by 9.1% and 8.1%, FPG decreased by 7.3% and 10.9%, and PPG decreased by 7.6% and 10.5%, respectively, in the glimepiride and rosiglitazone groups after 12 months. Patients receiving rosiglitazone experienced more rapid improvement in glycaemic control than those on glimepiride, and showed a significant improvement in insulin resistance-related parameters. There was a statistically significant decrease in basal homocysteinaemia in glimepiride-treated patients (-27.3%), but not in rosiglitazone-treated patients. Rosiglitazone plus metformin significantly improved long-term control of insulin resistance-related parameters compared with glimepiride plus metformin, although glimepiride treatment was associated with a slight improvement in cholesterolaemia, not observed in the rosiglitazone-treated patients, and with significant improvements in non-traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as basal homocysteinaemia and plasma Lp(a) levels.     

Effects of simvastatin on the lipid profile and attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals when added to thiazolidinedione therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the major cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Given the increasingly aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for patients with DM set by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and the American Diabetes Association, many patients remain above target. Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) improves glycemic control but does not lower (and may raise) LDL-C concentrations. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability of adding the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A-reductase inhibitor simvastatin to existing TZD therapy in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients with type 2 DM who were taking a stable dose of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone and had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value < or =9.0% and an LDL-C concentration > 100 mg/dL were randomized to receive simvastatin 40 mg (the recommended initial dose for patients with DM) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the effect of treatment on LDL-C concentrations. Other lipid, lipoprotein, and safety measures were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients (127 [50.2%] men, 126 [49.8%] women; mean age, 56 years) were randomized to treatment (123 simvastatin, 130 placebo). At the end of the study, mean LDL-C concentrations were reduced 34.)% from baseline (from 134.3 to 89.5 mg/dL) in the simvastatin group and were unchanged in the placebo group (P<0.001). Simvastatin produced significant reductions in concentrations of total cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B compared with placebo (all, P<0.001 ) and significant increases in concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ( P=0.002 ) and apo A-I ( P=0.006 ). In patients who had not attained target concentrations of LDL-C (<100 mg/dL), TG (<150 mg/dL), or HDL-C (>45 mg/dL) at baseline, significantly more simvastatin recipients had achieved these goals at the end of the study compared with placebo recipients (LDL-C: 67.3% vs 5.2%, respectively, P<0.001; HDL-C: 95.3% vs 83.6%, P<0.05; TG: 40.8% vs 11.0%, P<0.001 ). Simvastatin was well tolerated, and no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, or discontinuations due to adverse events were observed between groups. There were no significant between-group differences in glycemic control (HbA1c) or concentrations of fasting insulin, creatine phosphokinase, or hepatic transaminases. CONCLUSION: Simvastatin was an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for hyperlipidemia when used in combination with TZD therapy in this population of patients with type 2 DM.     

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%.     

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

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

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing pioglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing pioglitazone therapy were assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] > or =7% and < or =10%) while receiving a stable dose of pioglitazone. METHODS: This was a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study in patients aged > or =18 years (ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00086502). At screening, all patients began a diet/exercise program that continued throughout the study period. Patients taking antihyperglycemic therapy other than pioglitazone underwent a washout of this therapy and entered an 8- to 14-week open-label pioglitazone dose-titration/stabilization period. Patients with an HbA(1c) > or =7% and < or =10% at the end of this period entered a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period (total duration of run-in period, up to 21 weeks). Patients who had been receiving pioglitazone monotherapy (30 or 45 mg/d) and had an HbA(1c) > or =7% and < or =10% entered the 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period directly. Thus, at the time of randomization, all patients were receiving ongoing pioglitazone (30 or 45 mg/d). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive sitagliptin 100 mg once daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in HbA(1c) at week 24. Secondary efficacy end points included the change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, and proinsulin; the Homeostasis Model Assessment beta-cell function and insulin-resistance indexes; the proinsulin/ insulin ratio; the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index; the percent changes from baseline in selected lipid parameters; the proportion of patients meeting the American Diabetes Association HbA(1c), goal of <7.0%; the proportion of patients requiring metformin rescue therapy; and the time to the initiation of rescue therapy. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients were randomized to receive sitagliptin, and 178 were randomized to receive placebo. The mean (SD) baseline HbAlc value was 8.1% (0.8) in the sitagliptin group and 8.0% (0.8) in the placebo group. After 24 weeks, sitagliptin added to pioglitazone therapy was associated with significant reductions compared with placebo in HbA(1c) (between-treatment difference in least squares [LS] mean change from baseline. -0.70 %; 95 % CI, -0.85 to -0.54; P < 0.001) and FPG (-17.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, -24.3 to -11.0; P < 0.001). Mean HbA(1c) values at end point were 7.2% (0.9) and 7.8% (1.1) in the respective treatment groups, and the proportions of patients reaching a target HbA(1c) of <7.0% were 45.4% and 23.0% (P < 0.001). Significant reductions in fasting serum proinsulin levels and the proinsulin/insulin ratio were seen with sitagliptin treatment compared with placebo (both, P < 0.01). Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia compared with placebo (2 vs 0 patients, respectively).     

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.     

A randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled,clinical trial of the effects of pioglitazone on glycemic control and dyslipidemia in oral antihyperglycemic medication-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the effects of 2 doses of pioglitazone hydrochloride (a thiazolidinedione insulin sensitizer) with placebo on glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), insulin sensitivity, and lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had suboptimal glycemic control and mild dyslipidemia. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (HbA(1c) >/=6.5% and /=7% to <8%) or high (>/=8% to 相似文献   

Efficacy and tolerability of exenatide monotherapy over 24 weeks in antidiabetic drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of exenatide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes may be of clinical interest based on improvements in glycemic control and weight that have been reported with the use of exenatide in combination with oral antidiabetic agents. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of exenatide monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes naive to antidiabetic agents and whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: This 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted at 23 centers across the United States, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russia, and India. Patients aged >or=18 years with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive exenatide 5 microg, exenatide 10 microg, or placebo administered SC BID. Patients were instructed by investigators to maintain their individualized prestudy diet and exercise regimens throughout the study. Efficacy measures included: glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)); fasting serum glucose (FSG); 6-point self-monitored blood glucose; percentages of patients achieving HbA(1c) values or=1 treatment-emergent adverse event. Nausea was reported with the greatest incidence (5 microg, 3%; 10 microg, 13%; placebo, 0%; P = 0.010 for the combined exenatide group vs placebo). Most (88%) treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. Hypoglycemia was reported in 5%, 4%, and 1% of patients in the exenatide 5- and 10-microg and placebo groups, respectively (P = NS), with no incidents of severe hypoglycemia reported. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with type 2 diabetes naive to treatment with antidiabetic agents, exenatide monotherapy was associated with improved HbA(1c), improved fasting and postprandial glucose control, reduced weight, improved beta-cell function (HOMA-B), and improved blood pressure, and was well tolerated. These results suggest that exenatide monotherapy may provide a viable treatment option beyond diet and exercise and support further study of exenatide monotherapy in antidiabetic drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Effects of pioglitazone and glimepiride on glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial

BACKGROUND: Pioglitazone and glimepiride improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by different mechanisms. Pioglitazone is a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance, and glimepiride is a sulfonylurea insulin secretagogue. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to compare changes in measures of glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes who received pioglitazone or glimepiride for 1 year. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with either glimepiride (2 mg QD initially) or pioglitazone (15 mg QD initially). Doses were titrated (maximal doses: pioglitazone 45 mg, glimepiride 8 mg) to achieve glycemic targets (fasting blood glucose < or =7 mmol/L and 1-hour postprandial blood glucose < or =10 mmol/L). Insulin sensitivity (primary end point) was evaluated in terms of the Homeostasis Model Assessment for Insulin Sensitivity (HOMA-S), the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), and fasting serum insulin (FSI) concentrations. Glycemic control was evaluated in terms of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) values and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations. Patients were encouraged to maintain their individual diet and exercise regimens throughout the study. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four patients (125 women, 119 men; all but 1 Hispanic) were randomized to receive pioglitazone (n = 121) or glimepiride (n = 123). In the intent-to-treat sample, pioglitazone and glimepirede produced comparable reductions in HbA(1c) from baseline to the end of the study (-0.78% and -0.68%, respectively). The pioglitazone group had significantly higher HbA(1c) values compared with the glimepiride group after 12 weeks of therapy (8.66% vs 7.80%; P = 0.007) but had significantly lower values after 52 weeks (7.46% vs 7.77%; P = 0.027). Pioglitazone significantly reduced FPG compared with glimepiride (-0.6 vs 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.01). Pioglitazone therapy was associated with significant increases in insulin sensitivity (reduced insulin resistance), whereas glimepiride had no effect. HOMA-S values changed 18.0% for pioglitazone and -7.9% for glimepiride (P < 0.001), QUICKI values changed a respective 0.013 and -0.007 (P < 0.001), and FSI values were -21.1 and 15.1 pmol/L (P< 0.001). Both drugs were well tolerated, with pioglitazone associated with more peripheral edema (number of treatment-emergent cases: 35/121[28.9%] vs 17/123 [13.8%]; P = 0.005) and fewer hypoglycemic episodes (19 [15.7%] vs 38 [30.9%]; P = 0.024). The incidence of weight gain was not significantly different between treatment groups. Conclusions: These data suggest that long-term treatment with pioglitazone enhances insulin sensitivity relative to glimepiride in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes and that pioglitazone may have a more sustained antihyperglycemic effect.     

Rosiglitazone/metformin fixed-dose combination compared with uptitrated metformin alone in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) that involves uptitration of monotherapy to the maximum dose has been associated with delays in achieving glycemic control and an increased number of adverse events (AEs). Studies have reported the benefits of adding a thiazolidinedione to metformin (MET), but none has compared the effect of adding a thiazolidinedione to MET versus increasing the daily dose of MET to 3 g. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate the benefits of fixed-dose combination rosiglitazone and MET (RSG/MET) compared with high-dose MET monotherapy in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients previously treated with MET entered a 4-week, single-blind, run-in period with MET 2 g/d and were then randomized to RSG/MET 4 mg/2 g per day or MET 2.5 g/d. At week 8, medication was escalated to RSG/MET 8 mg/2 g per day or MET 3 g/d. The primary efficacy end point was change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at week 24. Tolerability was assessed, including the frequency and severity of AEs. RESULTS: A total of 568 patients comprised the safety population (MET, 280; RSG/MET, 288) and 551 formed the intent-to-treat group (MET, 272; RSG/MET, 279). Baseline characteristics of the safety population were comparable in the 2 groups; body mass index (mean [SD]) was 32.2 (4.8) kg/m(2) and 32.1 (4.9) kg/m(2) in the RSG/MET and MET groups, respectively. RSG/MET reduced HbA(1c) (mean [SD]) from 7.4% (1.0%) to 7.1% (1.1%) at week 24, compared with a reduction from 7.5% (1.0%) to 7.4% (1.1%) with MET (treatment difference, -0.22%; P = 0.001). Fasting plasma glucose (mean [SD]) was reduced from 166.2 (29) to 144.1 (33) mg/dL with RSG/MET and from 169.3 (33) to 164.0 (37) mg/dL with MET (treatment difference, -18.3 mg/dL; P < 0.001). In addition, 54% of patients treated with RSG/MET achieved HbA(1c) levels <7.0%, compared with 36% with MET (odds ratio, 2.42; P < 0.001). RSG/MET increased homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) estimates of insulin sensitivity by 34.4% versus 6.5% with MET (treatment difference, 24.8%; P < 0.001). HOMA beta-cell function increased by 15.9% with RSG/MET versus 2.5% with MET (treatment difference, 14.0%; P < 0.001). RSG/MET decreased C-reactive protein by a mean of 39.4% versus 16.0% with MET (treatment difference, -33.8%; P < 0.001). RSG/MET was generally well tolerated, with the majority of AEs mild to moderate in nature. Serious AEs were reported in 3% of patients receiving RSG/MET and 2% with MET. Overall rates of gastrointestinal AEs were 23% with RSG/MET and 26% with MET; however, there was an increased incidence of diarrhea (14% vs 6%) and abdominal pain (9% vs 6%) with MET. There was a mean (SE) increase in weight with RSG/MET (1.3 [0.22] kg) and a mean decrease (-0.9 [0.26] kg) with MET. Patients receiving RSG/MET reported improvements in treatment satisfaction compared with MET. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the RSG/MET fixed-dose combination (8 mg/2 g per day) was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for type 2 DM and enabled more patients to reach glycemic targets than high-dose MET (3 g/d).     

Muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) PPAR activator: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week monotherapy trial in adult patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) present a therapeutic target, and simultaneous activation of PPAR-alpha and PPAR-gamma may provide improvements in glycemic control and dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of muraglitazar, a dual (alpha/gamma) PPAR activator, in adult patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled by diet and exercise. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, 24-week monotherapy study in drug-naive, type 2 diabetes patients with inadequate glycemic control. Men and women aged 18 to 70 years with a body mass index < or =41 kg/m(2) and serum triglyceride levels < or =600 mg/dL were eligible for study participation. The study included double-blind and open-label treatment phases. Patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels > or =7.0% and < or =10.0% at screening were enrolled in the double-blind treatment phase. These patients received treatment with muraglitazar 2.5 mg, muraglitazar 5 mg, or placebo. Patients with HbA(1c) levels >10.0% and < or =12.0% who met all other study criteria were eligible for enrollment in a 24-week, open-label evaluation of muraglitazar 5 mg. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in HbA(1c) levels after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 340 patients (179 men, 161 women) participated in the double-blind treatment phase of the study. Patients had mean baseline HbA(1c) levels of 7.9% to 8.0%. Monotherapy with muraglitazar 2.5 and 5 mg significantly reduced HbA(1c) levels (-1.05% and -1.23%, respectively) compared with placebo (-0.32%; P < 0.001). At week 24, 58%, 72%, and 30% of the patients receiving muraglitazar 2.5 mg, muraglitazar 5 mg, and placebo, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association-recommended HbA(1c) goal of <7.0%. Fasting plasma glucose, free fatty acids, and fasting plasma insulin levels significantly decreased during muraglitazar treatment (P < 0.001), suggesting an increase in insulin sensitivity. Muraglitazar 2.5 and 5 mg provided improvements from baseline in triglyceride (-18% and -27%), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (10% and 16%), apolipoprotein B (-7% and -12%), and non-HDL cholesterol levels (-3% and -5%) (P < 0.05 vs placebo for each). In a parallel, open-label cohort of 109 drug-naive patients (56 men, 53 women; mean baseline HbA(1c) level, 10.6%), muraglitazar 5 mg decreased the overall mean HbA(1c) level from baseline by 2.62% (last observation carried forward) and by 3.49% in the 62 patients completing 24 weeks of study. Changes in lipid parameters during open-label treatment were similar to those observed during double-blind treatment. Muraglitazar was generally well tolerated. Edema-related adverse events of mild to moderate severity occurred in 8% to 11% of patients in all groups. Mean changes from baseline weight in the double-blind treatment groups were 1.1 kg for muraglitazar 2.5 mg, 2.1 kg for muraglitazar 5 mg, and -0.8 kg for placebo (P < 0.001); there was a mean 2.9-kg increase in the open-label muraglitazar 5-mg group. CONCLUSION: In this study, 24 weeks of treatment with muraglitazar 2.5 or 5 mg was an effective treatment option for these patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise.