Long-term effects of pioglitazone and metformin on insulin sensitivity in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: Despite their comparable glycaemic effects in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), pioglitazone and metformin may have different effects on insulin sensitivity because they have different mechanisms of action. We studied the changes in insulin sensitivity, as assessed by the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), in patients with T2DM who used metformin or pioglitazone as monotherapy or in combination therapy with sulphonylurea. METHODS: Data in this report are from two multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy studies conducted in Europe (monotherapy) or in Europe and Canada (combination therapy study). Patients were randomized to 52 weeks of treatment consisting of a 12-week forced titration period and a 40-week maintenance period. HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and fasting serum insulin (FSI) were quantified from a single blood sample at weeks 0, 8, 16, 24, 32, 42 and 52. Insulin sensitivity was assessed with QUICKI, which is calculated from FSI and fasting blood glucose (FBG) concentrations using the formula 1/(log(10) FSI + log(10) FBG). Time course effects of the treatments were compared by repeated measures analysis of covariance. RESULTS: As monotherapy, pioglitazone and metformin increased QUICKI compared with baseline (baseline vs. end point [mean +/- sem]; pioglitazone [0.303 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.321 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001] and metformin [0.304 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.315 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001]). Pioglitazone increased insulin sensitivity more than metformin from week 4 through week 52. There were significant increases in QUICKI from baseline in both combination therapy groups (baseline vs. end point; pioglitazone + sulphonylurea [0.305 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.319 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001] and metformin + sulphonylurea [0.306 +/- 0.001 vs. 0.317 +/- 0.001; P < 0.001]). Overall, pioglitazone + sulphonylurea significantly increased insulin sensitivity more than metformin + sulphonylurea. CONCLUSION: Pioglitazone differed from metformin in its effects on insulin sensitivity despite both drugs having comparable glycaemic effects.     

Effect of pioglitazone in combination with insulin therapy on glycaemic control, insulin dose requirement and lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes previously poorly controlled with combination therapy

AIM: The aim of this randomized placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pioglitazone administered alone or in combination with metformin in reducing insulin dosage requirements for improved glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes previously poorly controlled with combination therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind study, 222 patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA(1c))>8.0% at screening treated with combination therapy initially were given titrated insulin therapy (to fasting plasma glucose <140 mg/dl) and then were randomly assigned to 20-week treatment with pioglitazone or placebo in combination with insulin, with or without concurrent metformin therapy. More than 98% of patients were taking metformin prior to and during the study. RESULTS: Pioglitazone significantly reduced (p < 0.05) insulin dose requirements 2 weeks after treatment initiation. At study end relative to baseline, pioglitazone reduced daily insulin dosages by 12.0 units (p < 0.001), a 21.5% (12.0/55.8 units at baseline) group mean average reduction. Relative to placebo, pioglitazone reduced daily insulin dosages by 12.7 units [95% confidence interval [CI]: -17.5, -8.0], while improving mean HbA(1c) levels [adjusted mean HbA(1c) change: pioglitazone, -1.6% vs. placebo, -1.4% (not statistically different)]. Pioglitazone also significantly increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels [adjusted mean difference: +4.5 (95% CI: 2.6-6.5) mg/dl], decreased triglyceride levels [-43.9 (-69.2, -18.6) mg/dl], shifted low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle concentrations from small [pattern B, -13.6% (-17.7%, -9.5%)] to large [pattern A, +15.1% (10.8%, 19.5%)] and increased mean LDL particle size [+3.8 (2.6, 4.9) A]. More pioglitazone-treated patients experienced oedema (9.0 vs. 4.5%) and weight gain (9.1 vs. 2.7%) than placebo patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone in combination with insulin therapy improved glycaemic control, reduced insulin dose requirements and improved lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes previously poorly controlled with combination therapy.     

An increase in insulin sensitivity and basal beta-cell function in diabetic subjects treated with pioglitazone in a placebo-controlled randomized study.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of treatment with pioglitazone on beta-cell function and insulin sensitivity in Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Thirty subjects with diet-controlled Type 2 diabetes were randomized to 3 months treatment with pioglitazone (n = 19) or placebo (n = 11). All subjects underwent basal sampling for homeostatic model assessment (HOMA), followed by an intravenous glucose tolerance test and hyperglycaemic clamp, followed by an euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp; at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: All results are expressed as mean (sem). Pioglitazone increased basal insulin sensitivity by 24.7% (7.8) HOMA-%S vs. 2.1% (5.9) in the placebo group (P = 0.02). Stimulated insulin sensitivity, M/I, increased in the pioglitazone group compared with placebo: +15.1 (2.8) l kg(-1) min(-1) vs. +3.2 (2.9) l kg(-1) min(-1), respectively (P = 0.009). Pioglitazone increased adiponectin by 39.3 (6.3), ng/ml compared with a decrease of 0.8 (1.3) ng/ml with placebo (P = 0.00004). HOMA-%B increased with pioglitazone, +11.5% (4.8) vs. -2.0% (4.8) with placebo (P = 0.049), but there was no change in stimulated beta-cell function as determined by hyperglycaemic clamps. There was a significant reduction in the proinsulin/insulin ratio in the pioglitazone group, -0.057 (0.02) compared with placebo, +0.004 (0.02) (P = 0.03). There was a significant reduction in HbA(1c) of 0.6% (0.1) in the pioglitazone group compared with placebo (P = 0.003). There was no significant weight gain associated with pioglitazone therapy: +0.7 (sem 0.6) kg vs. +1.1 (sem 0.5) kg in placebo group (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Basal beta-cell function and insulin sensitivity improved following pioglitazone therapy. The improvement in proinsulin to insulin ratio suggests that beta-cells are under less stress.     

Initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin results in greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with pioglitazone monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial therapy with a fixed‐dose combination (FDC) of sitagliptin and metformin compared with pioglitazone in drug‐naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: After a 2‐week single‐blind placebo run‐in period, patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7.5–12% and not on antihyperglycaemic agent therapy were randomized in a double‐blind manner to initial treatment with a FDC of sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg twice daily (N = 261) or pioglitazone 30 mg per day (N = 256). Sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone were up‐titrated over 4 weeks to doses of 50/1000 mg twice daily and 45 mg per day, respectively. Both treatments were then continued for an additional 28 weeks. Results: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.9% in both groups, least squares (LS) mean changes in HbA1c at week 32 were ?1.9 and ?1.4% for sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone, respectively (between‐group difference = ?0.5%; p < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients had an HbA1c of <7% at week 32 with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone (57% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Compared with pioglitazone, sitagliptin/metformin treatment resulted in greater LS mean reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) [?56.0 mg/dl (?3.11 mmol/l) vs. ?44.0 mg/dl (?2.45 mmol/l), p < 0.001] and in 2‐h post‐meal glucose [?102.2 mg/dl (?5.68 mmol/l) vs. ?82.0 mg/dl (?4.56 mmol/l), p < 0.001] at week 32. A substantially greater reduction in FPG [?40.5 mg/dl (?2.25 mmol/l) vs. ?13.0 mg/dl (?0.72 mmol/l), p < 0.001] was observed at week 1 with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone. A greater reduction in the fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio and a greater increase in homeostasis model assessment of β‐cell function (HOMA‐β) were observed with sitagliptin/metformin than with pioglitazone, while greater decreases in fasting insulin and HOMA of insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR), and a greater increase in quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) were observed with pioglitazone than with sitagliptin/metformin. Both sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone were generally well tolerated. Sitagliptin/metformin led to weight loss (?1.4 kg), while pioglitazone led to weight gain (3.0 kg) (p < 0.001 for the between‐group difference). Higher incidences of diarrhoea (15.3% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001), nausea (4.6% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.02) and vomiting (1.9% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.026), and a lower incidence of oedema (1.1% vs. 7.0%, p < 0.001), were observed with sitagliptin/metformin vs. pioglitazone. The between‐group difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia did not reach statistical significance (8.4 and 4.3% with sitagliptin/metformin and pioglitazone, respectively; p = 0.055). Conclusion: Compared with pioglitazone, initial therapy with a FDC of sitagliptin and metformin led to significantly greater improvement in glycaemic control as well as a higher incidence of prespecified gastrointestinal adverse events, a lower incidence of oedema and weight loss vs. weight gain.     

Effects of pioglitazone hydrochloride on Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM: The effects of pioglitazone hydrochloride monotherapy on abnormal lipid control were evaluated in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, comparing with glibenclamide monotherapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive, once daily, pioglitazone hydrochloride, at 15 mg or 30 mg (n=46), or glibenclamide, at 1.25 mg or 2.5 mg (n=46). The 24-week study included patients with type 2 diabetes having high levels of triglyceride (TG). RESULTS: Pioglitazone hydrochloride produced beneficial effects on dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with the baseline and the glibenclamide group, as demonstrated by increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) particle size, a fall in TG levels, and an increased ratio of visceral to subcutaneous fat volumes (V/S). Pioglitazone hydrochloride reduced fasting serum insulin levels, with low fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycohemoglobin levels, compared to the baseline, suggesting an improvement of insulin resistance. CONCLUSION: As expected, glibenclamide reduced FPG levels through increased insulin secretion. Pioglitazone hydrochloride and glibenclamide were well tolerated. Pioglitazone hydrochloride improved dyslipidemia related to insulin resistance, whereas glibenclamide enhanced insulin secretion, with only a minor effect on lipid control, in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.     

A double-blind randomized study comparing the effects of continuing or not continuing rosiglitazone + metformin therapy when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of either continuing or discontinuing rosiglitazone + metformin fixed-dose combination when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral therapy. METHODS: In this 24-week double-blind study, 324 individuals with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on maximum dose rosiglitazone + metformin therapy were randomly assigned to twice-daily premix insulin therapy (target pre-breakfast and pre-evening meal glucose < or = 6.5 mmol/l) in addition to either rosiglitazone + metformin (8/2000 mg) or placebo. RESULTS: Insulin dose at week 24 was significantly lower with rosiglitazone + metformin (33.5 +/- 1.5 U/day, mean +/- se) compared with placebo [59.0 +/- 3.0 U/day; model-adjusted difference -26.6 (95% CI -37.7, -15,5) U/day, P < 0.001]. Despite this, there was greater improvement in glycaemic control [HbA(1c) rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 6.8 +/- 0.1 vs. 7.5 +/- 0.1%; difference -0.7 (-0.8, -0.5)%, P < 0.001] and more individuals achieved glycaemic targets (HbA(1c) < 7.0% 70 vs. 34%, P < 0.001). The proportion of individuals reporting at least one hypoglycaemic event during the last 12 weeks of treatment was similar in the two groups (rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 25 vs. 27%). People receiving rosiglitazone + metformin in addition to insulin reported greater treatment satisfaction than those receiving insulin alone. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated but more participants had oedema [12 (7%) vs. 4 (3%)] and there was more weight gain [3.7 vs. 2.6 kg; difference 1.1 (0.2, 2.1) kg, P = 0.02] with rosiglitazone + metformin. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of insulin to rosiglitazone + metformin enabled more people to reach glycaemic targets with less insulin, and was generally well tolerated.     

Effects of intensive insulin therapy alone and with added pioglitazone on renal salt/water balance and fluid compartment shifts in type 2 diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the effects of intensive insulin therapy alone or with added pioglitazone on renal salt/water balance and body fluid compartment shifts in type 2 diabetes. Methods: A total of 25 insulin‐treated, obese patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to pioglitazone 45 mg (n = 12) or placebo (n = 13) and treated intensively for 12–16 weeks to achieve equivalent glycaemic control. We measured total body water (TBW) and extracellular/intracellular fluid by bioimpedance analysis; plasma/RBC volume with I¹³¹albumin; sodium handling by fractional excretion of sodium/lithium (FeNa/FeLi) and other renal/hormonal parameters. Results: Intensification of insulin therapy and the addition of pioglitazone significantly improved glycaemia (HbA1C 7.8–7.2% and 7.6–7.1%) and increased body weight (1.7 and 4.9 kg) respectively. TBW increased 1.7 l with insulin alone (65% intracellular) and 1.6 l with added pioglitazone (75% extracellular) (p = 0.06 and 0.09 respectively). Plasma volume increased 0.2 ± 0.1 l with insulin alone (p = 0.05) and 0.4 ± 0.1 l with added pioglitazone (p < 0.05). Extravascular, extracellular (interstitial) fluid increased significantly and more with added pioglitazone (0.8 ± 0.2 l, p < 0.01) than with insulin alone (0.4 ± 0.2 l, p = ns). At steady‐state, FeLi (marker of proximal‐tubular sodium delivery to the distal nephron) increased significantly with added pioglitazone (12.4 ± 1.3 to 18.0 ± 3.2%) vs. no significant change with insulin alone (15.4 ± 1.2 to 14.5 ± 2.3%). There were no significant changes in the other parameters. Conclusion: In intensively insulin‐treated obese type 2 diabetic patients, at equivalent glycaemic control, the addition of pioglitazone causes greater weight gain, but a similar increase in body water that is mainly extracellular and interstitial compared with intracellular increase with insulin therapy alone. Pioglitazone also increases the filtered load of sodium reabsorbed at the distal nephron with no net change in FeNa.     

Rosiglitazone in Type 2 diabetes mellitus: an evaluation in British Indo-Asian patients.

AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of rosiglitazone in reducing hyperglycaemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) of Indo-Asian origin taking concurrent sulphonylurea therapy. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 26 weeks' duration at 31 primary and secondary care centres in areas of the UK with a high Indo-Asian population, including 177 patients aged 28-78 years. Rosiglitazone 8 mg/day or matching placebo was added to existing sulphonylurea therapy. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at week 26. RESULTS: The mean changes in HbA1c were -1.16% with rosiglitazone (baseline 9.21%) and +0.26% with placebo (baseline 9.06%) (treatment difference P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.81, -1.08). HbA1c fell below 8% in 55% and 19% of patients, respectively (treatment difference P < 0.001; 95% CI 0.22, 0.51). The greatest improvements occurred in patients whose glycaemic control was initially poor. Improvements in homeostasis model assessment of insulin sensitivity and pancreatic beta-cell function with rosiglitazone were not accompanied by a change in plasma insulin or C-peptide after 26 weeks. Free fatty acids fell by 0.09 mmol/l with rosiglitazone and increased by 0.03 mmol/l with placebo (treatment difference P < 0.001; 95% CI -0.19, -0.07). CONCLUSION: Rosiglitazone improved insulin sensitivity, pancreatic beta-cell function, and glycaemic control in Indo-Asian patients with Type 2 DM who are at greater risk of the complications of Type 2 DM than other ethnic groups.     

Alogliptin as a third oral antidiabetic drug in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and pioglitazone: a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of adding alogliptin versus uptitrating pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and pioglitazone. Methods: In this randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled, parallel‐group study, patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.0% on metformin (≥1500 mg or maximum tolerated dose; Met) and pioglitazone 30 mg (Pio30) received alogliptin 25 mg (Alo25; n = 404) or pioglitazone 15 mg (n = 399) added to Met+Pio30 for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in A1c at weeks 26 and 52, with sequential testing for non‐inferiority of Met+Pio30+Alo25 at weeks 26 and 52 and then for superiority at week 52. Results: Met+Pio30+Alo25 showed superior glycaemic control versus Met+Pio45 at week 52 [least squares (LS) mean CFB in A1c, ?0.70 vs. ?0.29%; p < 0.001]. At week 52, Met+Pio30+Alo25 resulted in greater CFB in A1c regardless of baseline A1c (p < 0.001); higher proportions of patients achieving A1c ≤7.0 (33.2 vs. 21.3%) and ≤6.5% (8.7 vs. 4.3%; p < 0.001); greater CFB in fasting plasma glucose (FPG; LS mean CFB, ?0.8 vs. ?0.2 mmol/L; p < 0.001); and greater improvements in measures of β‐cell function (p < 0.001). Hypoglycaemia incidence was low (Met+Pio30+Alo25, 4.5%; Met+Pio45, 1.5%), mostly mild to moderate, but with two severe events in the Met+Pio30+Alo25 group. No meaningful differences in incidences of individual adverse events were observed between treatments. Conclusions: Adding alogliptin to an existing metformin–pioglitazone regimen provided superior glycaemic control and potentially improved β‐cell function versus uptitrating pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes, with no clinically important differences in safety.     

Effects of pioglitazone in nondiabetic patients with arterial hypertension: a double-blind,placebo-controlled study

Hypertension is often associated with insulin resistance, dyslipidemia and obesity, which indicate a prediabetic state and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Pioglitazone treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes reduces insulin resistance and improves lipid profiles. The present double-blind placebo-controlled study is the first study to report effects of pioglitazone in non-diabetic patients with arterial hypertension. Following a one week run-in, 60 patients were randomized to receive either pioglitazone (45 mg/day) or placebo for 16 weeks. Insulin sensitivity (M-value) increased by 1.2 +/- 1.7 mg/min/kg with pioglitazone compared with 0.4 +/- 1.4 mg/min/kg (P = 0.022) with placebo. HOMA index was decreased (-22.5 +/- 45.8) by pioglitazone but not by placebo (+0.8 +/- 26.5; P < 0.001). Decreases in fasting insulin and glucose were significantly (P = 0.002 and P = 0.004, respectively) greater with pioglitazone than placebo. Body weight did not change significantly with either treatment. HDL-cholesterol was increased and apolipoprotein B was decreased to a significantly greater extent with pioglitazone. There was a significantly (P = 0.016) greater decrease from baseline in diastolic blood pressure with pioglitazone. These changes would suggest improved glucose metabolism and a possible reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease with pioglitazone treatment of non-diabetic patients with arterial hypertension.     

Reduced postprandial proinsulinaemia and 32-33 split proinsulinaemia after a mixed meal in type 2 diabetic patients following sensitization to insulin with pioglitazone

Objective Reduced insulin sensitivity associated with fasting hyperproinsulinaemia is common in type 2 diabetes. Proinsulinaemia is an established independent cardiovascular risk factor. The objective was to investigate fasting and postprandial release of insulin, proinsulin (PI) and 32–33 split proinsulin (SPI) before and after sensitization to insulin with pioglitazone compared to a group treated with glibenclamide. Design and patients A randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial. Twenty‐two type 2 diabetic patients were recruited along with 10 normal subjects. After 4 weeks washout, patients received a mixed meal and were assigned to receive pioglitazone or glibenclamide for 20 weeks, after which patients received another identical test meal. The treatment regimes were designed to maintain glycaemic control (HbA1c) at pretreatment levels so that β‐cells received an equivalent glycaemic stimulus for both test meals. Measurements Plasma insulin, PI, SPI and glucose concentrations were measured over an 8‐h postprandial period. The output of PI and SPI was measured as the integrated postprandial response (area under the curve, AUC). Results Pioglitazone treatment resulted in a significant reduction in fasting levels of PI and SPI compared to those of the controls. Postprandially, pioglitazone treatment had no effect on the insulin AUC response to the meal but significantly reduced the PI and SPI AUCs. Glibenclamide increased fasting insulin and the postprandial insulin AUC but had no effect on the PI and SPI AUCs. Conclusions Sensitization to insulin with pioglitazone reduces the amount of insulin precursor species present in fasting and postprandially and may reduce cardiovascular risk.     

盐酸吡格列酮治疗2型糖尿病的有效性和安全性的多中心临床研究

目的　评价盐酸吡格列酮对 2型糖尿病患者合用磺脲类和双胍类药物时的降血糖作用 ,观察其安全性。方法　采用随机、双盲、安慰剂平行对照和多中心临床研究方法。对 2 83例应用磺脲类和双胍类治疗而血糖控制不佳 (7 0mmol/L≤空腹血糖 <13 0mmol/L)的 2型糖尿病患者随机分入吡格列酮 30mg组与安慰剂组治疗随访 6次共 12周。结果　于 12周时 ,试验组与对照组空腹血糖水平较基线值分别平均下降了 1 1mmol/L和 0 4mmol/L(P <0 0 0 1) ;餐后血糖分别下降了 1 5mmol/L和 0 3mmol/L(P <0 0 0 1) ;糖化血红蛋白 (HbA1c)分别下降了 0 7%和 0 4 % (P <0 0 1)。试验组空腹胰岛素下降幅度高于对照组 (P <0 0 5 ) ,其两组治疗前后的差值比较均分别具有显著性统计学差异。试验组HOMA IR显著降低 (P <0 0 1)。结论　 12周的临床观察显示 ,对 2型糖尿病患者饮食、运动和口服降糖药 (磺脲类和双胍类 )治疗控制不佳者联合应用吡格列酮 (30mg/d) ,代谢控制可得到进一步的改善 ,胰岛素的敏感性增强 ,安全性和耐受性好。     

Comparison of repaglinide vs. gliclazide in combination with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycaemic agents.

AIMS: This open-label randomized controlled clinical trial compared the effect on glycaemic control and weight gain of repaglinide vs. gliclazide combined with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycaemic therapy [HbA1c>7.0% (DCCT aligned assay, normal range 4.6-6.2%)]. METHODS: Eighty subjects with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to 13 weeks' open-label treatment with repaglinide 4 mg t.i.d. or gliclazide 160 mg b.i.d. in combination with bedtime NPH insulin (initial dose 0.5 units/kg). The fasting blood glucose (FBG) target was < or =6.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar for age, sex, weight, BMI, FBG and HbA1c. Glycaemic control improved similarly in both groups-insulin/gliclazide by (mean) 1.0%, from 9.2 to 8.2% (P=0.001) and by 0.9%, from 9.4 to 8.5% in the insulin/repaglinide group (P=0.005) (P=0.83 between groups). Weight gain averaged (mean +/- sem) 4.1 +/- 0.5 and 3.4 +/- 0.4 kg in the insulin/gliclazide and insulin/repaglinide groups, respectively (P<0.0001 for both groups from baseline) (P=0.29 between groups). The mean number of hypoglycaemic episodes experienced per patient was 2.95 +/- 0.82 (insulin/gliclazide) and 2.3 +/- 0.52 (insulin/repaglinide) (P=0.81 between groups). Both treatments were associated with significant improvements in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction [Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-potential range 0 (min) to 36 (max)]; in the insulin/gliclazide group, by 4.9 +/- 1.1 points to 33.3 +/- 0.6 (P<0.0001) and by 3.0 +/- 0.9 points to 34.6 +/- 0.4 (P=0.0006) in the insulin/repaglinide group (P=0.29 between groups). CONCLUSIONS: Over 13 weeks, both repaglinide and gliclazide, when combined with bedtime NPH insulin produce similar significant improvements in glycaemic control (-1%) and similar weight gain.     

The role of sulphonylurea in combination therapy assessed in a trial of sulphonylurea withdrawal. Scandinavian Insulin-Sulphonylurea Study Group Research Team.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of adding insulin to sulphonylurea (SU) and the effect of SU withdrawal on glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetic patients who failed on treatment with SU alone. METHOD: One hundred and seventy-five patients were included in a placebo-controlled multicentre study. During phase I (4 months), premixed insulin was added to glibenclamide therapy; during phase II (1-4 months, depending on response) the insulin dose was fixed, while placebo or glibenclamide replaced the open SU therapy. Insulin sensitivity (KITT), beta-cell function (C-peptide) and metabolic control (HbA1c) were monitored. RESULTS: HbA1c improved from 9.65% to 7.23% (P < 0.0001) during phase I. A high HbA1c value (P < 0.0001) and a high KITT-value (P = 0.045) at baseline were associated with a beneficial response to combination treatment. During phase II, glycaemic control was unchanged in the control (glibenclamide) group. In the placebo group, after SU withdrawal, fasting blood glucose (FBG) increased by 10% or more within 4 weeks in 79% of the patients. Patients (67 of 112) with an FBG increase > or =40% during phase II were defined as 'SU responders' by protocol. In a multivariate analysis only a long duration of diabetes was associated with SU response. There were more GAD-antibody-positive patients among non-responders (18% vs. 4%, P = 0.0263). CONCLUSIONS: Poor glycaemic control in combination with preserved insulin sensitivity and lack of GAD antibodies predicts a beneficial response to combination therapy, which can be achieved in 75% of patients with SU failure.     

A case of secondary diabetes mellitus with acromegaly improved by pioglitazone.

AIM: The acromegaly patient was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. His HbA1c was 10.6% and fasting blood glucose (FBG) 15.3 mmol/l. We prescribed glibenclamide (10 mg/day), but his HbA1c and FBG remained high. At this stage, treatment with short-acting insulin was instigated at a dose of 20 U/day. However, the patient's blood glucose level remained unsatisfactory. We tried using pioglitazone. METHOD: Pioglitazone was prescribed at 30 mg/day in combination with the insulin. RESULTS: The FBG and HbA1c value decreased to 7.2 mmol/l and 7.3%, respectively, within 2 months and insulin was discontinued. Pioglitazone alone was able to control the FBG level. CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone treatment might be considered as a choice for similar cases of diabetes secondary to acromegaly.     

The impact of pioglitazone on glycemic control and atherogenic dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the glycemic control, lipid effects, and safety of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n = 197) with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > or = 8.0%, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > 7.7 mmol/l (140 mg/dl), and C-peptide > 0.331 nmol/l (1 ng/ml) were enrolled in this 23-week multi-center (27 sites), double-blind clinical trial and randomized to receive either a placebo or pioglitazone HCl 30 mg (pioglitazone), administered once daily, as monotherapy. Patients were required to discontinue all anti-diabetic medications 6 weeks before receiving study treatment. Efficacy parameters included HbA1c fasting plasma glucose (FPG), serum C-peptide, insulin, triglycerides (Tg), and cholesterol (total cholesterol [TC], high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C], low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C]). Adverse event rates, serum chemistry, and physical examinations were recorded. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, pioglitazone significantly (P= 0.0001) reduced HbA1c (-1.37% points), FPG (-3.19 mmol/l; -57.5 mg/dl), fasting C-peptide (-0.076+/-0.022 nmol/l), and fasting insulin (-11.88+/-4.70 pmol/l). Pioglitazone significantly (P < 0.001) decreased insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; -12.4+/-7.46%) and improved beta-cell function (Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA-BCF); +47.7+/-11.58%). Compared with placebo, fasting serum Tg concentrations decreased (-16.6%; P = 0.0178) and HDL-C concentrations increased (+12.6%; P= 0.0065) with pioglitazone as monotherapy. Total cholesterol and LDL-C changes were not different from placebo. The overall adverse event profile of pioglitazone was similar to that of placebo, with no evidence of drug-induced elevations of serum alanine transaminase (ALT) concentrations or hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone improved insulin resistance and glycemic control, as well as Tg and HDL-C - which suggests that pioglitazone may reduce cardiovascular risk for patients with type 2 diabetes.     

A randomized study of orlistat in combination with a weight management programme in obese patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with metformin.

AIMS: To assess the effects of orlistat vs. placebo, in combination with a weight management programme, on weight loss and metabolic control in obese patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients treated with either metformin alone or metformin in combination with sulphonylurea were randomized to double-blind treatment with orlistat or placebo (120 mg) three times daily, combined with a mildly reduced calorie diet and a weight management programme for 52 weeks. Changes in body weight, anthropometry, glycaemic control and lipid profile were assessed. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, orlistat-treated patients achieved an almost threefold greater reduction in weight compared with placebo recipients (-5.0% vs. -1.8%; P<0.0001). The decrease in waist circumference was significantly greater with orlistat than placebo (-4.8 cm vs. -2.8 cm; P=0.0022). Orlistat treatment was also associated with significantly greater reductions in haemoglobin A(1c) (-1.1% vs. -0.2%; P<0.0001), fasting plasma glucose (-1.9 mmol/l vs. -0.3 mmol/l; P<0.0001), total cholesterol (-0.2 mmol/l vs. 0.1 mmol/l; P=0.03) and apolipoprotein B (-0.08 g/l vs. 0.01 g/l; P=0.0085) and greater improvements in beta-cell function (P=0.031) and insulin resistance (P=0.001) assessed using the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA). Similar results were obtained for subgroups of patients treated with metformin alone or metformin in combination with sulphonylurea. Orlistat treatment reduced the requirement for anti-diabetic medication more than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Orlistat, in combination with a reduced calorie diet and a weight management programme, promotes weight loss and clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control and other cardiovascular risk factors in obese patients with Type 2 diabetes.     

Glycaemic control, disease duration and beta-cell function in patients with Type 2 diabetes in a Swedish community. Skaraborg Hypertension and Diabetes Project.

AIMS: To examine determinants for glycaemic control in primary care patients with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a community-based surveillance of primary care patients with Type 2 diabetes, 190 men and 186 women were consecutively identified and examined for cardiovascular risk factors. Insulin resistance and beta-cell function were estimated using homeostasis model assessment (HOMA). Good glycaemic control was defined as HbA(1c) < 6.5%. RESULTS: Following adjustment for age and gender, HbA(1c) > or = 6.5% was associated with duration of diabetes (10.6 vs. 6.4 years, P < 0.001), lower levels of serum insulin (6.3 vs. 8.0 mU/l, P = 0.012), higher serum triglyceride levels (2.0 vs. 1.7 mmol/l, P = 0.002) and impairment of beta-cell function (HOMA index 19.5 vs. 45.8, P < 0.001). The association between HbA(1c) levels and duration remained with adjustment for age, gender, waist-hip ratio (WHR) and serum triglycerides (odds ratio (OR) for HbA(1c) > or = 6.5% by 5 years diabetes duration = 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4--2.1) but was lost following additional adjustment for beta-cell function (OR for HbA(1c) > or = 6.5% = 1.3; 95% CI 0.96-1.7). In a separate linear regression with beta-cell function as the dependent variable there was a significant association with HbA1c after adjustments for differences in age, gender, WHR, serum triglyceride levels and diabetes duration (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing HbA1c by time was associated with declining beta-cell function.     

Improved glycaemic control with metformin-glibenclamide combined tablet therapy (Glucovance) in Type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled on metformin.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosage strengths of a single-tablet metformin-glibenclamide (glyburide) combination, compared with the respective monotherapies, in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. METHODS: In this 16-week, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group trial, 411 patients were randomized to receive metformin 500 mg, glibenclamide 5 mg, metformin-glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg or metformin-glibenclamide 500 mg/5 mg, titrated with the intention to achieve fasting plasma glucose (FPG) < or = 7 mmol/l. RESULTS: Decreases in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and FPG were greater (P < 0.05) for metformin-glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg (-1.20% and -2.62 mmol/l) and 500 mg/5 mg (-0.91% and -2.34 mmol/l), compared with metformin (-0.19% and -0.57 mmol/l) or glibenclamide (-0.33% and -0.73 mmol/l). HbA1c < 7% was achieved by 75% and 64% of patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg and 500 mg/5 mg, respectively, compared with 42% for glibenclamide and 38% for metformin (P = 0.001). These benefits were achieved at lower mean doses of metformin or glibenclamide with metformin-glibenclamide 500 mg/2.5 mg and 500 mg/5 mg (1225 mg/6.1 mg and 1170 mg/11.7 mg) than with glibenclamide (13.4 mg) or metformin (1660 mg). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in two patients receiving glibenclamide. Plasma lipid profiles were unaffected and mean changes in body weight were < or = 1.0 kg. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive management of Type 2 DM with a new metformin-glibenclamide combination tablet improved glycaemic control and facilitated the attainment of glycaemic targets at lower doses of metformin or glibenclamide compared with the respective monotherapies, without compromising tolerability.