Repaglinide versus metformin in combination with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes established on insulin/metformin combination therapy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on glycemic control and weight gain of repaglinide versus metformin combined with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 80 subjects treated with 850 or 1,000 mg t.i.d. metformin combined with bedtime NPH insulin were randomized to 13 weeks of open-label treatment with 4 mg t.i.d. repaglinide (n = 39) or metformin (dose unchanged) (n = 41). Insulin dose was titrated at the clinician's discretion, aiming for a fasting blood glucose (FBG) < or =6.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Baseline age, diabetes duration, insulin requirement, weight, BMI, FBG, and HbA(1c) (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial-aligned assay, normal range 4.6-6.2%) were similar. Glycemic control improved (nonsignificantly) with insulin/metformin by (mean) 0.4%, from 8.4 to 8.1% (P = 0.09) but deteriorated with insulin/repaglinide by (mean) 0.4%, from 8.1 to 8.6% (P = 0.03; P = 0.005 between groups). Weight gain was less with insulin/metformin: 0.9 +/- 0.4 kg (means +/- SE) (P = 0.01) versus 2.7 +/- 0.4 kg (P < 0.0001) (P = 0.002 between groups). The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score (potential range 0 [minimum] to 36 [maximum]) increased from 32.4 +/- 0.8 to 34.1 +/- 0.5 (P = 0.01) with insulin/metformin but decreased from 32.5 +/- 0.9 to 29.1 +/- 1.3 (P < 0.002) with insulin/repaglinide. CONCLUSIONS: Combined with bedtime NPH insulin, metformin provides superior glycemic control to repaglinide with less weight gain and improved diabetes treatment satisfaction.     

Achieving glycosylated hemoglobin targets using the combination of repaglinide and metformin in type 2 diabetes: a reanalysis of earlier data in terms of current targets

BACKGROUND: For patients with type 2 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) currently recommend a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c) ) target of <7%, and the British Medical Association (BMA) Quality and Outcomes Framework recommends an HbA(1c) target of >or=7.5%. OBJECTIVE: This letter presents a reanalysis of data from a previous study of the effect on glycemic control of adding repaglinide to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes to determine the proportion of patients achieving current ADA/EASD and BMA targets. METHODS: PubMed was searched using the terms repaglinide AND metformin AND HbA(1c) to identify published comparisons of monotherapy and combination therapy with these drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: In the original analysis, which employed an HbA(1c) target of <7.1%, 59%of patients treated with metformin plus repaglinide achieved their glycemic target, compared with approximately 20% of patients treated with metformin or repaglinide alone. On reanalysis of the data according to the current ADA/EASD HbA(1c) target of <7%, 56% of patients receiving metformin and repaglinide achieved that goal,compared with 19%each in the groups treated with metformin or repaglinide monotherapy. On reanalysis of the data according to the BMA Quality and Outcomes Framework HbA(1c) target of >or=7.5%, 89% of patients receiving metformin and repaglinide achieved that goal, compared with 43%and 42% of patients receiving metformin and repaglinide monotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on this reanalysis of earlier data in terms of currently recommended HbA(1c) targets, combination therapy with repaglinide and metformin would appear to be a good treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes.     

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

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

Twelve- and 52-week efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor LAF237 in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 12- and 52-week efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor LAF237 versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes continuing metformin treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 107 patients with type 2 diabetes with a 40-week extension in those completing the core study and agreeing, together with the investigator, to extend treatment to 1 year. Placebo (n=51) or LAF237 (50 mg once daily, n=56) was added to ongoing metformin treatment (1,500-3,000 mg/day). HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were measured periodically, and standardized meal tests were performed at baseline, week 12, and week 52. RESULTS: In patients randomized to LAF237, baseline HbA1c averaged 7.7 +/- 0.1% and decreased at week 12 (Delta=-0.6 +/- 0.1%), whereas HbA1c did not change from a baseline of 7.9 +/- 0.1% in patients given placebo (between-group difference in DeltaHbA1c=-0.7 +/- 0.1%, P <0.0001). Mean prandial glucose and FPG were significantly reduced in patients receiving LAF237 versus placebo by 2.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l (P <0.0001) and 1.2 +/- 0.4 mmol/l (P=0.0057), respectively, but plasma insulin levels were not affected. At end point of the extension, the between-group differences in change in mean prandial glucose, insulin, and FPG were -2.4 +/- 0.6 mmol/l (P=0.0001), 40 +/- 16 pmol/l (P=0.0153), and -1.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l (P=0.0312), respectively. HbA1c did not change from week 12 to week 52 in LAF237-treated patients (n=42) but increased in participants given placebo (n=29). The between-group difference in DeltaHbA1c after 1 year was -1.1 +/- 0.2% (P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study demonstrate that LAF237 effectively prevents deterioration of glycemic control when added to metformin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes.     

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.     

Repaglinide versus nateglinide monotherapy: a randomized, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE: A randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter 16-week clinical trial compared efficacy and safety of repaglinide monotherapy and nateglinide monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with diet and exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 150) had received treatment with diet and exercise in the previous 3 months with HbA(1c) >7 and < or =12%. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with repaglinide (n = 76) (0.5 mg/meal, maximum dose 4 mg/meal) or nateglinide (n = 74) (60 mg/meal, maximum dose 120 mg/meal) for 16 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy end points were changes in HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values from baseline, respectively. Postprandial glucose, insulin, and glucagon were assessed after a liquid test meal (baseline, week 16). Safety was assessed by incidence of adverse events or hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) values were similar in both groups (8.9%). Final HbA(1c) values were lower for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (7.3 vs. 7.9%). Mean final reductions of HbA(1c) were significantly greater for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (-1.57 vs. -1.04%; P = 0.002). Mean changes in FPG also demonstrated significantly greater efficacy for repaglinide than nateglinide (-57 vs. -18 mg/dl; P < 0.001). HbA(1c) values <7% were achieved by 54% of repaglinide-treated patients versus 42% for nateglinide. Median final doses were 6.0 mg/day for repaglinide and 360 mg/day for nateglinide. There were 7% of subjects treated with repaglinide (five subjects with one episode each) who had minor hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) versus 0 patients for nateglinide. Mean weight gain at the end of the study was 1.8 kg in the repaglinide group as compared with 0.7 kg for the nateglinide group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients previously treated with diet and exercise, repaglinide and nateglinide had similar postprandial glycemic effects, but repaglinide monotherapy was significantly more effective than nateglinide monotherapy in reducing HbA(1c) and FPG values after 16 weeks of therapy.     

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%.     

A randomized double-blind trial of acarbose in type 2 diabetes shows improved glycemic control over 3 years (U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study 44)

OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree to which alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, with their unique mode of action primarily reducing postprandial hyperglycemia, offer an additional therapeutic approach in the long-term treatment of type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 1,946 patients (63% men) who were previously enrolled in the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). The patients were randomized to acarbose (n = 973), titrating to a maximum dose of 100 mg three times per day, or to matching placebo (n = 973). Mean +/- SD age was 59 +/- 9 years, body weight 84 +/- 17 kg, diabetes duration 7.6 +/- 2.9 years, median (interquartile range) HbA1c 7.9% (6.7-9.5), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 8.7 mmol/l (6.8-11.1). Fourteen percent of patients were treated with diet alone, 52% with monotherapy, and 34% with combined therapy. Patients were monitored in UKPDS clinics every 4 months for 3 years. The main outcome measures were HbA1c, FPG, body weight, compliance with study medication, incidence of side effects, and frequency of major clinical events. RESULTS: At 3 years, a lower proportion of patients were taking acarbose compared with placebo (39 vs. 58%, P < 0.0001), the main reasons for noncompliance being flatulence (30 vs. 12%, P < 0.0001) and diarrhea (16 vs. 8%, P < 0.05). Analysis by intention to treat showed that patients allocated to acarbose, compared with placebo, had 0.2% significantly lower median HbA1c at 3 years (P < 0.001). In patients remaining on their allocated therapy, the HbA1c difference at 3 years (309 acarbose, 470 placebo) was 0.5% lower median HbA1c (8.1 vs. 8.6%, P < 0.0001). Acarbose appeared to be equally efficacious when given in addition to diet alone; in addition to monotherapy with a sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin; or in combination with more complex treatment regimens. No significant differences were seen in FPG, body weight, incidence of hypoglycemia, or frequency of major clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: Acarbose significantly improved glycemic control over 3 years in patients with established type 2 diabetes, irrespective of concomitant therapy for diabetes. Careful titration of acarbose is needed in view of the increased noncompliance rate seen secondary to the known side effects.     

Therapy focused on lowering postprandial glucose, not fasting glucose, may be superior for lowering HbA1c. IOEZ Study Group

OBJECTIVE: To compare the overall efficacy of combination therapies focused on fasting or postprandial blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled with oral sulfonylurea agents alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 135 patients were randomly assigned for 3 months to 1 of 3 combination regimens with glyburide (G) that addressed postprandial blood glucose with insulin lispro (L+G), premeal blood glucose with metformin (M+G), or fasting blood glucose (FBG) with bedtime NPH insulin (NPH+G). RESULTS: At end point, HbA1c was significantly lower with all therapies (P = 0.001) and was significantly lower for L+G (7.68+/-0.88%) compared with either NPH+G (8.51+/-1.38%, P = 0.003) or M+G (8.31+/-1.31%, P = 0.025). FBG at end point was significantly lower for NPH+G (8.49+/-2.36 mmol/l) compared with either L+G (10.57+/-1.97 mmol/l, P = 0.001) or M+G (9.69+/-2.89 mmol/l, P = 0.029). The mean 2-h postprandial glucose after a test meal was significantly lower for L+G (10.87+/-2.88 mmol/l) versus NPH+G (12.21+/-3.12 mmol/, P = 0.052) or versus M+G (12.72+/-3.26 mmol/l, P = 0.009). The overall rate of hypoglycemia (episodes per 30 days) was low and not statistically significant between groups (P = 0.156). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a second antihyperglycemic agent, regardless of its timing of action, lowers HbA1c and glucose values. However, when insulin lispro was used to focus on postprandial blood glucose, there was a greater impact on overall metabolic control. These data support the importance of lowering postprandial blood glucose to optimize overall glycemic control and thus improve long-term outcomes.     

The synergistic effect of miglitol plus metformin combination therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE--To investigate the efficacy and safety of miglitol in combination with metformin in improving glycemic control in outpatients in whom type 2 diabetes is insufficiently controlled by diet alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 324 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized, after an 8-week placebo run-in period, to treatment with either placebo, miglitol alone, metformin alone, or miglitol plus metformin for 36 weeks. The miglitol was titrated to 100 mg three times a day and metformin was administered at 500 mg three times a day. The primary efficacy criterion was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to the end of treatment. Secondary parameters included changes in fasting and postprandial plasma glucose and insulin levels, serum triglyceride levels, and responder rate. RESULTS--A total of 318 patients were valid for intent-to-treat analysis. A reduction in mean placebo-subtracted HbA(1c) of -1.78% was observed with miglitol plus metformin combination therapy, which was significantly different from treatment with metformin alone (-1.25; P = 0.002). Miglitol plus metformin also resulted in better metabolic control than metformin alone for fasting plasma glucose (-44.8 vs. -20.4 mg/dl; P = 0.0025), 2-h postprandial glucose area under the curve (-59.0 vs. -18.0 mg/dl; P = 0.0001), and responder rate (70.6 vs. 45.52%; P = 0.0014). All therapies were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS--In type 2 diabetic patients, miglitol in combination with metformin gives greater glycemic improvement than metformin monotherapy.     

Effects of metformin and rosiglitazone monotherapy on insulin-mediated hepatic glucose uptake and their relation to visceral fat in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: Impaired insulin-mediated hepatic glucose uptake (HGU) has been implicated in the hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetes. We examined the effects of metformin (2 g/day) and rosiglitazone (8 mg/day) monotherapy on HGU and its relation to subcutaneous fat, visceral fat (VF), and whole-body insulin-mediated glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Glucose uptake was measured before and after 26 weeks of treatment using positron emission tomography with [(18)F]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose during euglycemic hyperinsulinemia; fat depots were quantified by magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Fasting plasma glucose levels were significantly decreased after either rosiglitazone (-0.9 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) or metformin treatment (-1.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) in comparison with placebo; only metformin was associated with weight loss (P < 0.02 vs. placebo). When controlling for the latter, the placebo-subtracted change in whole-body glucose uptake averaged -1 +/- 4 micromol x min(-1) x kg(-1) in metformin-treated patients (NS) and +9 +/- 3 micromol x min(-1) x kg(-1) in rosiglitazone-treated patients (P = 0.01). Both rosiglitazone and metformin treatment were associated with an increase in HGU; versus placebo, the change reached statistical significance when controlling for sex (placebo-subtracted values = +0.008 +/- 0.004 micromol x min(-1) x kg(-1) x pmol/l(-1), P < 0.03, for metformin; and +0.007 +/- 0.004, P < 0.07, for rosiglitazone). After treatment with either drug, insulin-mediated VF glucose uptake (VFGU) was higher than with placebo. In the whole dataset, changes in HGU were negatively related to changes in HbA(1c) (r = 0.43, P = 0.01) and positively associated with changes in VFGU (r = 0.48, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that both metformin and rosiglitazone monotherapy increase HGU in type 2 diabetes; direct drug actions, better glycemic control, and enhanced VF insulin sensitivity are likely determinants of this phenomenon.     

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

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

PRESERVE-beta: two-year efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide or glyburide plus metformin

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with nateglinide/metformin versus glyburide/metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, 2-year study of 428 drug-na?ve patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients received 120 mg a.c. nateglinide or 1.25 mg q.d. glyburide plus 500 mg q.d. open-label metformin for the initial 4 weeks. During a subsequent 12-week titration period, glyburide and metformin were increased by 1.25- and 500-mg increments to maximum daily doses of 10 and 2,000 mg, respectively, if biweekly fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or = 6.7 mmol/l. Nateglinide was not titrated. Blinding was maintained by use of matching placebo for nateglinide and glyburide. An 88-week monitoring period followed, during which HbA1c (A1C), FPG, and postprandial glucose excursions (PPGEs) during an oral glucose tolerance test were measured. RESULTS: In nateglinide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.4% at baseline and 6.9% at week 104. In glyburide/metformin-treated patients, mean A1C was 8.3% at baseline and 6.8% at week 104 (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline for both treatments, NS between treatments). The deltaPPGE averaged -96 +/- 19 (P < 0.0001) and -57 +/- 22 mmol.l(-1).min(-1) (P < 0.05) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively, whereas deltaFPG was -1.6 +/- 0.2 (P < 0.0001) and -2.4 +/- 0.2 mmol/l (P < 0.0001) in patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively (P < 0.01 between groups). Thus, the two treatments achieved similar efficacy with differential effects on FPG versus PPGE. Hypoglycemia occurred in 8.2 and 17.7% of patients receiving nateglinide/metformin and glyburide/metformin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar good glycemic control can be maintained for 2 years with either treatment regimen, but nateglinide/metformin may represent a safer approach to initial combination therapy.     

A 1-year multicenter randomized double-blind comparison of repaglinide and glyburide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dutch and German Repaglinide Study Group

OBJECTIVE: Repaglinide is a newly developed oral blood glucose-lowering agent that exerts its effect by stimulating insulin secretion. This multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of this drug with glyburide in a 1-year randomized double-blind study of outpatients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 424 subjects (154 women, 270 men) participated and had the following characteristics: age, 61 +/- 9 years; duration of diabetes. 8 years (range 0.5-35); BMI, 28.3 +/- 3.5 kg/m2; HbA1c, 7.1 +/- 1.4%; and fasting plasma glucose, 10.8 +/- 3.1 mmol/l. The majority of the subjects (91%) were previously treated with sulfonylurea, alone or in combination with metformin. The patients were randomized to a 2:1 ratio of repaglinide (0.5-4 mg t.i.d.) or glyburide (1.75-10.5 mg daily) treatment. The study protocol included a screening visit to assess patient eligibility; a titration period of 6-8 weeks, during which the dosages of repaglinide and glyburide were optimized; and a subsequent 12-month treatment period on fixed, optimal dosages. RESULTS: The trial was completed by 320 subjects, 211 (74%) in the repaglinide and 109 (78%) in the glyburide group. HbA1c initially decreased in both groups and then increased during the second half-year of the maintenance period to a similar extent in the repaglinide and glyburide subjects (0.58 and 0.45% vs. at screening, respectively). In the small group of subjects who previously controlled their condition with diet only (n = 37), a sustained improvement of metabolic control could be observed with both drugs, which was slightly better with glyburide than with repaglinide (theta HbA1c -2.4 vs. -1.0%; P < 0.05). The same trends were seen with fasting plasma glucose. There were no changes in serum lipids. Over the course of the study, 15% of the repaglinide-treated and 13% of glyburide-treated subjects withdrew due to adverse events, mostly hyperglycemia. No differences in adverse events between both drugs were reported. There were no differences in incidences of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Repaglinide is a safe and efficacious oral blood glucose-lowering agent, with a potency similar to that of glyburide. Its rapid onset of action and hepatic clearance allows meal-related administration, including in subjects with impaired kidney function.     

Effect of metformin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Metformin is the most commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic agent in the U.S. for adults with type 2 diabetes. The incidence of type 2 diabetes in children has increased dramatically over the past 10 years, and yet, metformin has never been formally studied in children with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of metformin at doses up to 1,000 mg twice daily in 82 subjects aged 10-16 years for up to 16 weeks in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial from September 1998 to November 1999. Subjects with type 2 diabetes were enrolled if they had a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels > or =7.0 and < or =13.3 mmol/l (> or =126 and < or =240 mg/dl), HbA(1c) > or =7.0%, stimulated C-peptide > or =0.5 nmol/l (> or =1.5 ng/ml), and a BMI > 50th percentile for age. RESULTS: Metformin significantly improved glycemic control. At the last double-blind visit, the adjusted mean change from baseline in FPG was -2.4 mmol/l (-42.9 mg/dl) for metformin compared with +1.2 mmol/l (+21.4 mg/dl) for placebo (P < 0.001). Mean HbA(1c) values, adjusted for baseline levels, were also significantly lower for metformin compared with placebo (7.5 vs. 8.6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Improvement in FPG was seen in both sexes and in all race subgroups. Metformin did not have a negative impact on body weight or lipid profile. Adverse events were similar to those reported in adults treated with metformin. CONCLUSION: Metformin was shown to be safe and effective for treatment of type 2 diabetes in pediatric patients.     

Effect of orlistat in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of orlistat, a gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor, on body weight, glycemic control, and cardiovascular risk factors in metformin-treated type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 1-year multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 120 mg orlistat t.i.d. (n = 249) or placebo (n = 254) combined with a reduced-calorie diet was conducted in overweight and obese patients with suboptimal control of type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: After 1 year of treatment, mean (+/-SE) weight loss was greater in the orlistat than in the placebo group (-4.6 +/- 0.3% vs. -1.7 +/- 0.3% of baseline wt, P < 0.001). Orlistat treatment caused a greater improvement in glycemic control than placebo, as evidenced by a greater reduction in serum HbA(1c), adjusted for changes in metformin and sulfonylurea therapy (-0.90 +/- 0.08 vs. -0.61 +/- 0.08, P = 0.014); a greater proportion of patients achieving decreases in HbA(1c) of > or = 0.5 and > or = 1.0% (both P < 0.01); and a greater reduction in fasting serum glucose (-2.0 +/- 0.2 vs. -0.7 +/- 0.2 mmol/l, P = 0.001). Compared with the placebo group, patients treated with orlistat also had greater decreases in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (all P < 0.05). Although more subjects treated with orlistat experienced gastrointestinal side effects than placebo (83 vs. 62%, P < 0.05), more subjects in the placebo group withdrew prematurely from the study than in the orlistat group (44 vs. 35%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Orlistat is a useful adjunctive treatment for producing weight loss and improving glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and blood pressure in obese patients with type 2 diabetes who are being treated with metformin.     

Vascular effects of improving metabolic control with metformin or rosiglitazone in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test whether vascular reactivity is modified by improving metabolic control and peripheral insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind design, we assigned 74 type 2 diabetic patients to rosiglitazone (8 mg/day), metformin (1,500 mg/day), or placebo treatment for 16 weeks and measured insulin sensitivity (euglycemic insulin clamp), ambulatory blood pressure, and forearm blood flow response to 1) intra-arterial acetylcholine (ACh), 2) intra-arterial nitroprusside, 3) the clamp, and 4) blockade of nitric oxide (NO) synthase. RESULTS: Compared with 25 nondiabetic subjects, patients had reduced insulin sensitivity (30 +/- 1 vs. 41 +/- 3 micromol. min(-1). kg fat-free mass(-1); P < 0.001) and reduced maximal response to ACh (586 +/- 42 vs. 883 +/- 81%; P < 0.001). Relative to placebo, 16 weeks of rosiglitazone and metformin similarly reduced fasting glucose (-2.3 +/- 0.5 and -2.3 +/- 0.5 mmol/l) and HbA(1c) (-1.2 +/- 0.3 and -1.6 +/- 0.3%). Insulin sensitivity increased with rosiglitazone (+6 +/- 3 micromol. min(-1). kg fat-free mass(-1); P < 0.01) but not with metformin or placebo. Ambulatory diastolic blood pressure fell consistently (-2 +/- 1 mmHg; P < 0.05) only in the rosiglitazone group. Nitroprusside dose response, clamp-induced vasodilatation, and NO blockade were not affected by either treatment. In contrast, the slope of the ACh dose response improved with rosiglitazone (+40% versus baseline, P < 0.05, +70% versus placebo, P < 0.005) but did not change with either metformin or placebo. This improvement in endothelium-dependent vasodilatation was accompanied by decrements in circulating levels of free fatty acids and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. CONCLUSIONS: At equivalent glycemic control, rosiglitazone, but not metformin, improves endothelium dependent vasodilatation and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes.     

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

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

Efficacy of benfluorex in combination with sulfonylurea in type 2 diabetic patients: an 18-week, randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of benfluorex over placebo as an add-on therapy in type 2 diabetic patients in whom diabetes is insufficiently controlled by sulfonylurea monotherapy and who have a limitation for the use of metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Type 2 diabetic patients with HbA(1c) (A1C) (7-10%) who were receiving the maximum tolerated sulfonylurea dose and had a contraindication to or poor tolerance of metformin were randomly assigned (double blind) to receive benfluorex 450 mg/day (n = 165) or placebo (n = 160) for 18 weeks. The main efficacy criterion was A1C, analyzed as the change from baseline to the end of treatment using ANCOVA with baseline and country as covariates. Secondary criteria were fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin resistance, and plasma lipid level. RESULTS: Both groups were similar at baseline in the intention-to-treat population. A1C significantly decreased with benfluorex from 8.34 +/- 0.83 to 7.52 +/- 1.04% (P < 0.001) and tended to increase with placebo from 8.33 +/- 0.87 to 8.52 +/- 1.36% (NS), resulting in a mean adjusted difference between groups of -1.01% (95% CI -1.26 to -0.76; P < 0.001). The target A1C (< or =7%) was achieved in 34% of patients receiving benfluorex versus 12% of patients receiving placebo. Significant between-group differences in favor of benfluorex were observed for mean FPG (-1.65 mmol/l) (P < 0.001) and for homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance. Overall tolerance was similar in both groups. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the benfluorex group, without evidence of causality relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Benfluorex as an add-on therapy was superior to placebo in lowering A1C with a between-group difference of 1% in type 2 diabetic patients whose disease was insufficiently controlled with sulfonylurea alone and in whom metformin was contraindicated or not tolerated.     

Comparison of insulin monotherapy and combination therapy with insulin and metformin or insulin and troglitazone in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatment with insulin alone, insulin plus metformin, or insulin plus troglitazone in individuals with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 88 type 2 diabetic subjects using insulin monotherapy (baseline HbA(lc) 8.7%) were randomly assigned to insulin alone (n = 31), insulin plus metformin (n = 27), or insulin plus troglitazone (n = 30) for 4 months. The insulin dose was increased only in the insulin group. Metformin was titrated to a maximum dose of 2,000 mg and troglitazone to 600 mg. RESULTS: HbA(lc) levels decreased in all groups, the lowest level occurring in the insulin plus troglitazone group (insulin alone to 7.0%, insulin plus metformin to 7.1%, and insulin plus troglitazone to 6.4%, P < 0.0001). The dose of insulin increased by 55 units/day in the insulin alone group (P < 0.0001) and decreased by 1.4 units/day in the insulin plus metformin group and 12.8 units/day in the insulin plus troglitazone group (insulin plus metformin versus insulin plus troglitazone, P = 0.004). Body weight increased by 0.5 kg in the insulin plus metformin group, whereas the other two groups gained 4.4 kg (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline). Triglyceride and VLDL triglyceride levels significantly improved only in the insulin plus troglitazone group. Subjects taking metformin experienced significantly more gastrointestinal side effects and less hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive insulin therapy significantly improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetic subjects to levels comparable with those achieved by adding metformin to insulin therapy. Troglitazone was the most effective in lowering HbA(lc), total daily insulin dose, and triglyceride levels. However, treatment with insulin plus metformin was advantageous in avoiding weight gain and hypoglycemia.