Metformin-glibenclamide versus metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

AIM: This double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of metformin-glibenclamide tablets vs. metformin plus rosiglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After an open-label, metformin lead-in phase, 318 patients were randomly assigned to treatment based on metformin-glibenclamide 500/2.5 mg tablets (initial daily dose 1000/5 mg) or metformin 500 mg plus rosiglitazone 4 mg (initial daily dose 1000-2000 mg + 4 mg, depending on previous treatment) for 24 weeks. Doses were titrated to achieve the therapeutic glycaemic target. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA1C. RESULTS: At week 24, metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C (-1.5%) and fasting plasma glucose [-2.6 mmol/l (-46 mg/dl)] than metformin plus rosiglitazone [-1.1%, p < 0.001; -2 mmol/l (-36 mg/dl), p = 0.03]. More patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide attained HbA1C <7.0% than did those in the metformin plus rosiglitazone group (60 vs. 47%) and had fasting plasma glucose levels <7 mmol/l (<126 mg/dl) by week 24 (34 vs. 25%). Both treatments were well tolerated. Frequency of adverse gastrointestinal events was comparable between groups. Four per cent of patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide withdrew because of symptomatic hypoglycaemia contrasted with 3% of patients receiving metformin plus rosiglitazone who withdrew because of persistent hyperglycaemia. Hypoglycaemic events were mild or moderate in intensity and were easily self-managed. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C and fasting plasma glucose compared with metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.     

Association between first-line monotherapy with metformin and the risk of atrial fibrillation (AMRAF) in patients with type 2 diabetes

BackgroundType 2 diabetes (T2D) has a strong association with atrial fibrillation (AF) which increases risk of thromboembolic events, heart failure, and frequent hospitalizations. Metformin is the first-line medication for T2D with proposed anti-inflammatory, pro-metabolic, and cardio-protective benefits. Our objective was to investigate if initial therapy with metformin is associated with reduced incidence of AF in comparison to other non-insulin anti-hyperglycemic agents in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.MethodsThis retrospective cohort analysis included adults with a new diagnosis of T2D who were started on monotherapy (except insulin) between 2007 and 2017, without prior anti-hyperglycemic agent use, history of arrhythmias, or estimated GFR (eGFR) ≤ 30 ml/min. A multivariate analysis was performed using a fine-gray regression competing risk analysis to control for confounding variables after which pooled hazard ratios and 95 % confidence intervals were reported. Patients were followed until the end of study date, development of AF, addition of more anti-hyperglycemic agents, or death, whichever occurred first.ResultsAmong 4584 metformin initiators compared to 1080 non-metformin monotherapy initiators, 10-year cumulative incidence of AF in metformin group was 5.2 % as compared to 8.1 % with other agents which was not statistically significant. Competing risk analysis did not demonstrate reduced rates of AF with metformin use (HR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.69 to 1.21; P = 0.55). Increased age and the presence of congestive heart failure were associated with significantly higher risk of AF in both groups (HR: 1.29, 95 % CI: 1.21 to 1.37; P ≤ 0.001; HR: 2.73, 95 % CI: 1.62 to 4.61; P ≤ 0.001, respectively).ConclusionInitiation of metformin as a first line monotherapy for T2D, when compared to other non-insulin monotherapies, was not associated with decreased risk of developing AF in this retrospective observational study.     

Efficacy of glyburide/metformin tablets compared with initial monotherapy in type 2 diabetes

Many patients with type 2 diabetes fail to achieve or maintain the American Diabetes Association's recommended treatment goal of glycosylated hemoglobin levels. This multicenter, double-blind trial enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control [glycosylated hemoglobin A(1C) (A1C), >7% and <12%) with diet and exercise alone to compare the benefits of initial therapy with glyburide/metformin tablets vs. metformin or glyburide monotherapy. Patients (n = 486) were randomized to receive glyburide/metformin tablets (1.25/250 mg), metformin (500 mg), or glyburide (2.5 mg). Changes in A1C, fasting plasma glucose, fructosamine, serum lipids, body weight, and 2-h postprandial glucose after a standardized meal were assessed after 16 wk of treatment. Glyburide/metformin tablets caused a superior mean reduction in A1C from baseline (-2.27%) vs. metformin (-1.53%) and glyburide (-1.90%) monotherapy (P = 0.0003). Glyburide/metformin also significantly reduced fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postprandial glucose values compared with either monotherapy. The final mean doses of glyburide/metformin (3.7/735 mg) were lower than those of metformin (1796 mg) and glyburide (7.6 mg). First-line treatment with glyburide/metformin tablets provided superior glycemic control over component monotherapy, allowing more patients to achieve American Diabetes Association treatment goals with lower component doses in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Efficacy and safety of monotherapy of sitagliptin compared with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sitagliptin and metformin in treatment‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: In a double‐blind study, 1050 treatment‐naïve patients (i.e. not taking an antihyperglycaemic agent for ≥16 weeks prior to study entry) with type 2 diabetes and an HbA_1c 6.5–9% were randomized (1:1) to treatment with once‐daily sitagliptin 100 mg (N = 528) or twice‐daily metformin 1000 mg (N = 522) for 24 weeks. Metformin was up‐titrated from 500 to 2000 mg per day (or maximum tolerated daily dose ≥1000 mg) over a period of 5 weeks. The primary analysis used a per‐protocol (PP) approach to assess whether sitagliptin was non‐inferior to metformin based on HbA_1c change from baseline at week 24. Non‐inferiority was to be declared if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between‐group difference in this endpoint was <0.40%. Results: From a mean baseline HbA_1c of 7.2% in the PP population, HbA_1c change from baseline was ?0.43% with sitagliptin (n = 455) and ?0.57% with metformin (n = 439). The between‐group difference (95% CI) was 0.14% (0.06, 0.21), thus confirming non‐inferiority. Baseline HbA_1c influenced treatment response, with larger reductions in HbA_1c observed in patients with baseline HbA_1c≥8% in the sitagliptin (–1.13%; n = 74) and metformin (–1.24%; n = 73) groups. The proportions of patients at week 24 with HbA_1c values at the goals of <7 or <6.5% were 69 and 34% with sitagliptin and 76 and 39% with metformin, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose changes from baseline were ?11.5 mg/dL (–0.6 mmol/l) and ?19.4 mg/dl (–1.1 mmol/l) with sitagliptin and metformin, respectively (difference in LS mean change from baseline [95% CI] = 8.0 mg /dl [4.5,11.4]). Both treatments led to similar improvements from baseline in measures of homeostasis model assessment‐β cell function (HOMA‐β) and insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR). The incidence of hypoglycaemia was 1.7% with sitagliptin and 3.3% with metformin (p = 0.116). The incidence of gastrointestinal‐related adverse experiences was substantially lower with sitagliptin (11.6%) compared with metformin (20.7%) (difference in incidence [95% CI] = ?9.1% [?13.6,?4.7]), primarily because of significantly decreased incidences of diarrhoea (3.6 vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001) and nausea (1.1 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.032). Body weight was reduced from baseline with both sitagliptin (LS mean change [95% CI] = ?0.6 kg [?0.9,?0.4]) and metformin (–1.9 kg [–2.2, ?1.7]) (p < 0.001 for sitagliptin vs. metformin). Conclusions: In this 24‐week monotherapy study, sitagliptin was non‐inferior to metformin in improving HbA_1c in treatment‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Although both treatments were generally well tolerated, a lower incidence of gastrointestinal‐related adverse experiences was observed with sitagliptin.     

Significant correlation of glycated albumin, but not glycated haemoglobin, with arterial stiffening in haemodialysis patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective We recently reported that glycated albumin (GA) is a better indicator of glycaemic control compared with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in haemodialysis (HD) patients with type 2 diabetes. As poor glycaemic control is considered an independent risk factor for atherosclerosis in diabetes, the relationship between GA, HbA1c and arterial stiffening was examined in HD patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients and methods The present study comprised 134 HD patients with type 2 diabetes, and 158 patients without diabetes. Brachial‐ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) was measured in all patients using a waveform analyser. Results The mean plasma glucose (PG), GA and HbA1c levels were 7·49 ± 2·28 mmol/l, 20·8 ± 5·57% and 5·62 ± 1·26%, respectively, in HD patients with diabetes (n = 134), which were significantly greater than the respective values of 5·77 ± 1·89 mmol/l, 15·6 ± 2·34% and 4·98 ± 0·80% in those without diabetes (n = 158) (P < 0·0001). BaPWV was 21·69 ± 6·90 m/s in HD patients with diabetes, which was significantly greater than the value of 18·74 ± 4·89 m/s in those without diabetes (P < 0·0001). When the analysis was performed in a combined population of those patients with and without diabetes, the mean PG (r = 0·155, P < 0·05) and GA (r = 0·117, P < 0·05), but not HbA1c (r = 0·092, P = 0·125), exhibited significant correlations with baPWV. Multivariate regression analysis, which included age, gender, mean blood pressure, and serum levels of albumin, creatinine and LDL cholesterol, to evaluate the independent association of each marker for glycaemic control with baPWV values in HD patients demonstrated that GA, but not HbA1c or PG, was an independent factor that was significantly associated in a positive manner with baPWV in HD patients. Conclusion It was suggested that poor glycaemic control, as reflected by increased GA values, might be associated with increased arterial stiffening in HD patients.     

Mortality among veterans with type 2 diabetes initiating metformin, sulfonylurea or rosiglitazone monotherapy

Aims/hypotheses

Despite oral hypoglycaemic medications being the most commonly used pharmacological treatments for type 2 diabetes, research is limited on their comparative safety, particularly their effects on overall mortality. We compared mortality risk with monotherapy initiation of four oral hypoglycaemic medications in a nationwide cohort of US veterans with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We identified new users of oral hypoglycaemic medication monotherapy between 2004 and 2009 who received care for at least 1 year from the Veterans Health Administration. Patients were followed until initial monotherapy discontinuation, addition of another diabetes pharmacotherapy, death or end of follow-up. Mortality HRs were estimated using Cox regression adjusted for potential confounding factors.

Results

Among new users of metformin, sulfonylureas and rosiglitazone (185,360 men, 7,812 women), 4,256 (2.2%) died during follow-up. Average duration of medication use ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 years. Significantly higher mortality risk was seen for glibenclamide (known as glyburide in the USA and Canada) (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27, 1.50) or glipizide (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.43, 1.67) compared with metformin monotherapy, and for glipizide compared with rosiglitazone (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01, 1.59) or glibenclamide monotherapy (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02, 1.23). A significant sex–rosiglitazone interaction was seen (p?=?0.034) compared with metformin monotherapy, with women having a higher HR (HR 4.36, 95% CI 1.34, 14.20) than men (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95, 1.49).

Conclusions/interpretations

Significantly higher mortality was associated with glibenclamide, glipizide and rosiglitazone use compared with metformin, and with glipizide use compared with rosiglitazone or glibenclamide. The potential for residual confounding by indication should be considered in interpreting these results.     

Comparison of repaglinide and metformin versus metformin alone for type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of repaglinide plus metformin with metformin alone on type 2 diabetes. Twenty-two studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed combination therapy was safe and could gain better outcomes in glycemic control. Well-designed studies are required to confirm this conclusion.     

Targeting hyperglycaemia with either metformin or repaglinide in non-obese patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized crossover trial

AIM: Metformin is the 'drug-of-first-choice' in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) due to its antihyperglycaemic and cardiovascular protective potentials. In non-obese patients with T2DM, insulin secretagogues are empirically used as first choice. In this investigator-initiated trial, we evaluated the effect of metformin vs. an insulin secretagogue, repaglinide on glycaemic regulation and markers of inflammation and insulin sensitivity in non-obese patients with T2DM. METHODS: A single-centre, double-masked, double-dummy, crossover study during 2 x 4 months involved 96 non-obese (body mass index < or = 27 kg/m(2)) insulin-na?ve patients with T2DM. At enrolment, previous oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHA) were stopped and patients entered a 1-month run-in on diet-only treatment. Hereafter, patients were randomized to either repaglinide 2 mg thrice daily followed by metformin 1 g twice daily or vice versa each during 4 months with 1-month washout between interventions. RESULTS: End-of-treatment levels of haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose, mean of seven-point home-monitored plasma glucose and fasting levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and adiponectin were not significantly different between treatments. However, body weight, waist circumference, fasting serum levels of insulin and C-peptide were lower and less number of patients experienced hypoglycaemia during treatment with metformin vs. repaglinide. Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In non-obese patients with T2DM, overall glycaemic regulation was equivalent with less hypoglycaemia during metformin vs. repaglinide treatment for 2 x 4 months. Metformin was more effective targeting non-glycaemic cardiovascular risk markers related to total and abdominal body fat stores as well as fasting insulinaemia. These findings may suggest the use of metformin as the preferred OHA also in non-obese patients with T2DM.     

Factors associated with failure to achieve a glycated haemoglobin target of <8.0% in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial

The aim of this study was to identify the clinical features of participants in the standard therapy arm of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) glycaemia trial who failed to reach the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) target. We analysed 4685 participants in the standard therapy arm, comparing participants who reached the HbA1c target of <8.0% with those whose HbA1c level was ≥8.0% 12 months after randomization. Baseline and 12‐month clinical characteristics were compared. At 12 months after randomization, 3194 participants had HbA1c <8.0% and 1491 had HbA1c ≥8.0%. Black race [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61–0.89; p = 0.002], severe hypoglycaemia (OR 0.57, CI 0.37–0.89; p = 0.014) and insulin use (OR 0.51, CI 0.40–0.65; p < 0.001) were associated with failure to reach HbA1c goal at 12 months in the adjusted model. Even with free medications, free visits with clinicians and aggressive titration of medications, >30% of participants in the standard arm of the ACCORD trial had an HbA1c ≥8.0% at 1 year. Participants who were black, had severe hypoglycaemia and were on insulin were more likely to have an above‐target HbA1c concentration after 12 months on the standard protocol.     

Positive association of branched-chain amino acids with triglyceride and glycated haemoglobin in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background and aimsOver the past few years, branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) are increasingly being linked to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but their relevance for metabolic dyslipidaemia in T2DM is unclear. This study aims to determine the plasma and urinary BCAAs and their association with insulin resistance, lipid profile and glycated haemoglobin in patients with T2DM among Indian adults.MethodsIn this analytical cross-sectional study, a total of eighty subjects were recruited, 40 T2DM cases and 40 healthy controls. Blood samples collected were subjected to fasting blood sugar (FBS), lipid profile, HbA1c, insulin and BCAAs analysis and urine samples were assessed for BCAAs. All associations were assessed using Spearman Rank Correlation.ResultsThe plasma levels of BCAAs were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in subjects with T2DM than in control subjects. Spearman Rank Correlation analyses revealed a non-significant (p = 0.21) but positive association between BCAAs and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) in patients with T2DM (Rho: 0.27). Among lipid profile parameters, only triglycerides had a significant positive correlation to plasma BCAAs in cases (Rho: 0.5971) but not in control subjects. Findings also revealed a significant positive (p < 0.05) association between plasma BCAAs and HbA1c in patients with T2DM (Rho: 0.5325). Urinary BCAAs levels had a non-significant increase in T2DM subjects and did not show any significant correlation with other parameters assessed.ConclusionElevated levels of plasma BCAAs are positively associated with triglyceride and HbA1c. They could serve as an effective marker for the assessment of metabolic dyslipidaemia in subjects with T2DM. Further, large scale studies are needed for confirmation of the same.     

Comparison of fructosamine and glycated haemoglobin in children with Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus

Summary In six children (age: mean 8.4 years, range 2.2–12.6 years) with newly diagnosed Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, plasma fructosamine and glycated haemoglobin (HbA₁) were compared in respect to their disappearance during the first month after diagnosis during well controlled glycaemia. The disappearance of the surplus plasma fructosamine and HbA₁ was calculated applying exponential equations. The estimated half-lives of fructosamine (mean 57.2 days, range 40.7–77 days) and HbA₁ (mean 59.7 days, range 43.3–82 days) were not significantly different, a finding which is left unexplained.     

The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aims: This study was conducted to compare the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with the fixed‐dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug‐naive patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: This double‐blind study (18‐week Phase A and 26‐week Phase B) randomized 1250 drug‐naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes [mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 9.9%] to sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg bid or metformin 500 mg bid (uptitrated over 4 weeks to achieve maximum doses of sitagliptin/metformin 50/1000 mg bid or metformin 1000 bid). Results of the primary efficacy endpoint (mean HbA1c reductions from baseline at the end of Phase A) are reported herein. Results: At week 18, mean change from baseline HbA1c was ?2.4% for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and ?1.8% for metformin monotherapy (p < 0.001); more patients treated with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had an HbA1c value <7% (p < 0.001) versus metformin monotherapy. Changes in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with sitagliptin/metformin FDC (?3.8 mmol/l) versus metformin monotherapy (?3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Homeostasis model assessment of β‐cell function (HOMA‐β) and fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio were significantly improved with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy. Baseline body weight was reduced by 1.6 kg in each group. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia. Abdominal pain (1.1 and 3.9%; p = 0.002) and diarrhoea (12.0 and 16.6%; p = 0.021) occurred significantly less with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy; the incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in both groups. Conclusion: Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial treatment with sitagliptin/metformin FDC provided superior glycaemic improvement with a similar degree of weight loss and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea.