甘精胰岛素联合瑞格列奈与预混胰岛素治疗的疗效与安全性比较

目的:比较甘精胰岛素联合瑞格列奈或二甲双胍与预混胰岛素(精蛋白锌重组赖脯胰岛素25)治疗的疗效与安全性.方法:将96例2型糖尿病口服降糖药控制不能达标的患者随机分为两组.A组为甘精胰岛素联合瑞格列奈或二甲双胍;B组为精蛋白锌赖脯胰岛素25组;两组以空腹血糖<6.1 mmol/L,同时B组餐前血糖<6.7 mmol/L为目标;观察24周,观察血糖、血糖波动、胰岛素日用量、低血糖的发生率、糖化学红蛋白的达标率及体重变化等指标.结果:两组糖化血红蛋白达标相似无统计学的差异;而空腹血糖达标率、胰岛素日用量、夜间低血糖的发生率、体重增加均A组优于B组.结论:甘精胰岛素联合瑞格列奈或二甲双胍治疗口服降糖药物控制不佳的2型糖尿病患者较精蛋白锌赖脯胰岛素治疗控制血糖更平稳,低血糖发生率少,体重增加少且同样能有良好的糖化血红蛋白达标,且依从性好.     

甘精胰岛素联合口服降糖药治疗初诊2型糖尿病的临床疗效

目的探讨长效胰岛素类似物甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍口服治疗血糖明显升高的初诊2型糖尿病患者的临床疗效。方法将64例初诊2型糖尿病患者随机分为两组,治疗组32例给予睡前皮下注射1次甘精胰岛素,结合每日三餐前口服二甲双胍进行治疗;对照组每日早晚餐前皮下注射诺和灵N,二甲双胍服用方法同治疗组,均治疗12周,比较两组胰岛素总用量、血糖变化、血糖达标时间及低血糖事件等。结果治疗后两组血糖水平均明显下降（P〈0.05）;而治疗组在空腹血糖（FPG）、餐后2 h血糖（2 hPBG）、糖化血红蛋白（HbA1 c）、血糖达标时间、日胰岛素用量及低血糖发生率方面均明显优于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论采用甘精胰岛素联合口服二甲双胍降糖药能有效控制FPG、2 hPBG及HbA1 c,胰岛素用量少且低血糖发生率较低,可用于血糖明显升高的初诊2型糖尿病患者的临床治疗。     

甘精胰岛素与门冬胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病疗效对比

目的探讨甘精胰岛素与门冬胰岛素对应用口服降糖药血糖不能达标的2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者血糖水平的影响。方法选择血糖控制较差的糖尿病患者60例,随机分为两组:一组以甘精胰岛素治疗;一组以门冬胰岛素三餐前注射,两组均与二甲双胍联用,观察治疗前空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后两小时血糖(2 h BG)、胰岛素用量、二甲双胍用量、低血糖发生率血糖达标时间。结果甘精胰岛素组降糖快速稳定,血糖达标时间短,治疗后FBG、2 h BG更理想,日间血糖波动幅度小,低血糖发生率低,优于门冬胰岛素组(P均0.05)。结论对血糖控制较差的2型糖尿病患者,睡前应用甘精胰岛素治疗,降糖效果显著,且安全平稳。     

甘精胰岛素与预混胰岛素分别联合口服降糖药治疗2型糖尿病患者的效果比较

目的比较甘精胰岛素与预混胰岛素分别联合口服降糖药治疗2型糖尿病(T2DM)的效果。方法 84例T2DM患者随机分为A组与B组各42例。A组给予甘精胰岛素皮下注射联合口服降糖药阿卡波糖治疗,B组给予预混胰岛素联合阿卡波糖治疗。比较2组治疗前后血糖监测值、胰岛素用量和血糖达标情况。结果 2组治疗后空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后2 h血糖(PBG)、糖化血红蛋白(Hb A1c)水平均较本组治疗前显著下降(P 0. 05)。2组治疗后FBG、PBG、Hb A1c控制达标率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。A组胰岛素用量少于B组,低血糖发生率低于B组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0. 05)。2组心脑血管事件发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。结论甘精胰岛素与预混胰岛素分别联合阿卡波糖均能有效控制血糖,但甘精胰岛素联合阿卡波糖方案能显著减少胰岛素用量,降低低血糖发生率。     

甘精胰岛素与格列本脲治疗初诊2型糖尿病的疗效对比

目的比较甘精胰岛素与格列本脲对初诊2型糖尿病(T2DM)的疗效及安全性。方法将60例T2DM患者随机分为3组,每组20例。A组给予甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍,B组给予格列本脲联合二甲双胍,C组给予精蛋白生物合成人胰岛素注射液(预混30R)。比较3组患者治疗前后空腹血糖(FPG)、餐后2 h血糖(2hPG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbAlc)、餐后C肽水平变化,以及A、B组低血糖发生率。结果 A组各指标改善情况均显著优于B、C组,B组各指标改善情况有优于C组的趋势,但除HbAlc外,其余指标间差异均无统计学意义。A组前6周及后6周低血糖发生率均有低于B组的趋势,但差异无统计学意义。结论甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗T2DM,可以显著降低患者血糖,改善糖代谢,且低血糖发生率较低,安全性高,优于格列本脲联合二甲双胍,值得临床推广。     

甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效分析

探讨甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍在2型糖尿病患者中的治疗效果。选取收治的80例口服降糖药不能达标的2型糖尿病患者,按照治疗方法的不同分为治疗组和对照组各40例。对照组采用二甲双胍缓释片联合中性低精蛋白锌人胰岛素治疗,治疗组采用甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗,治疗2w后比较血糖控制情况。治疗组治疗后的FBG、P2BG和HbA1c均显著低于对照组（P〈0.05）。治疗组低血糖的发生率显著低于对照组（P〈0.05）。甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病不仅能够获得较好的控糖效果,而且低血糖的发生率低。     

甘精胰岛素联合格华止治疗2型糖尿病的疗效和安全性

目的比较每日注射一次长效重组甘精胰岛素注射液与中效低精蛋白锌人胰岛素(NPH)联合口服格华止治疗2型糖尿病的血糖控制情况和发生低血糖的风险。方法35例口服一种或两种降糖药但血糖控制不良的2型糖尿病患者(HbA1 c>7.5%),随机分为甘精胰岛素治疗组(n=17)和NPH组(n=18),分别采用每晚10点注射甘精胰岛素加口服格华止(500mg,tid)和每晚10点注射NPH胰岛素加口服格华止(500mg,tid)治疗。根据空腹血糖(FBG)水平调整胰岛素用量,以两组FBG均达到5.6mmol/L为治疗目标,共治疗12周,观察血糖控制情况和低血糖发生率。结果治疗后甘精胰岛素组和NPH胰岛素组的平均FBG和HbA1 c无明显差异(P>0.05);但甘精胰岛素组低血糖发生率明显少于NPH组(P<0.05)。结论每日注射1次长、中效胰岛素联合格华止的方案可使绝大多数口服降糖药物治疗血糖控制不良的2型糖尿病患者血糖获得理想控制,甘精胰岛素的低血糖发生率明显低于NPH胰岛素。     

甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍在2型糖尿病强化治疗中的疗效分析

目的探讨甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍强化治疗2型糖尿病疗效。方法将93例初诊2型糖尿病患者分为3组：A组38例,采用甘精胰岛素皮下注射,1次.d-1,3餐餐时口服二甲双胍治疗;B组22例,采用人胰岛素R联合中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素（NPH）多次皮下注射治疗;C组33例,采用预混人胰岛素30 R早晚各1次皮下注射治疗。比较3组患者血糖达标率、日内平均血糖、日内血糖波动幅度及低血糖发生率。结果B组血糖达标率高于A组与C组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;日内平均血糖及日内血糖波动幅度3组比较差异均无统计学意义（均P〉0.05）;低血糖发生率A组低于B组及C组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05或P〈0.01）。结论3种治疗方式若均能使血糖控制达标情况下,A组与C组治疗血糖控制达标率相当,B组高于A组及C组,但A组低血糖事件发生最低,患者依从性好,治疗更具有效性和安全性。     

甘精胰岛素联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的疗效

目的探讨甘精胰岛素注射液联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病的临床疗效和安全性。方法将60例2型糖尿病患者按治疗方法的不同分为2组:甘精胰岛素组和诺和灵30R组,每组30例。2组均严格糖尿病饮食,并适量运动;采用二甲双胍片治疗。在此基础上,甘精胰岛素组采用甘精胰岛素注射液治疗,诺和灵30R组采用精蛋白生物合成人胰岛素注射液(预混30R)治疗。观察2组治疗前、治疗12周后空腹血糖(FPG)、餐后2 h血糖(2 hPPG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbAlc)、血糖达标时间、胰岛素日用量、日平均血糖、BMI、夜间低血糖发生率、空腹C肽(FCP)和餐后C肽(PCP)水平的情况。结果与诺和灵30R组比较,甘精胰岛素组治疗12周后HbAlc明显降低,血糖达标时间明显缩短,胰岛素日用量明显减少,夜间低血糖发生率低,FCP、PCP水平均明显升高(P<0.05或P<0.01)。结论采用甘精胰岛素注射液联合二甲双胍治疗2型糖尿病疗效显著,低血糖发生率较低,是一种理想的治疗方法。     

两种胰岛素方案治疗2型糖尿病的疗效与安全性比较

目的:比较赖脯胰岛素联合中效胰岛素(中性鱼精蛋白锌胰岛素,neutral protamine hagedorn, NPH)与常规猪胰岛素(regular insulin, RI)联合甘精胰岛素2种方案治疗2型糖尿病的疗效和低血糖发生情况.方法:将32例2型糖尿病患者设为A组,30例2型糖尿病患者设为B组.A组采用餐前皮下注射赖脯胰岛素加睡前皮下注射NPH治疗,B组采用餐前皮下注射RI加睡前皮下注射甘精胰岛素治疗,治疗12周后分析2种方案的胰岛素剂量、降低血糖效果以及低血糖发生率.结果:2种方案降低血糖的疗效相当.B组睡前用的甘精胰岛素剂量明显多于A组所用的NPH剂量,B组餐前所用RI剂量明显少于A组赖脯胰岛素剂量,同时B组的低血糖发生率明显低于A组.结论:2种治疗方案均能够有效控制血糖,与餐前皮下注射赖脯胰岛素加睡前皮下注射NPH方案相比,餐前皮下注射RI加睡前皮下注射甘精胰岛素方案不易发生低血糖.     

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

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

西格列汀或瑞格列奈联合甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病的临床观察

目的比较西格列汀联合甘精胰岛素与瑞格列奈联合甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病（T2DM）的疗效。方法将2011年1月-2012年12月80例服用2种口服降糖药（OAD）血糖控制不佳的T2DM患者,按就诊奇偶顺序分为观察组和对照组各40例,观察组采用西格列汀联合甘精胰岛素予以治疗,对照组应用瑞格列奈联合甘精胰岛素治疗,治疗12周,观察两组患者空腹血糖（FBG）、餐后2 h血糖（2hPG）、糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）、体质量指数（BMI）等指标及胰岛素用量、低血糖发生情况。结果治疗后两组FBG、2hPG、HbA1c均较前下降（P〈0.05）;观察组与对照组HbA1c达标率分别为88.3%、87.8%,但观察组胰岛素用量比对照组减少12.1%,且BMI得到控制,低血糖发生率低。结论西格列汀联合甘精胰岛素治疗可有效控制血糖和体质量,减少低血糖事件,在同等HbA1c达标率下,所用的胰岛素剂量更少。     

艾塞那肽联合二甲双胍治疗口服降糖药控制不佳的2型糖尿病疗效观察

目的观察艾塞那肽联合二甲双胍治疗对口服降糖药(OAD)控制不佳的2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者的临床疗效。方法 31例既往使用OAD控制不佳的T2DM患者,改用艾塞那肽联合二甲双胍治疗3个月,观察治疗前后空腹血糖(FPG)、餐后2h血糖(2hPG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)、体重、体质指数(BMI)、C-肽(空腹及餐后2h)、总胆固醇(TC)、甘油三酯(TG)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)的变化。结果治疗后FPG、2hPG、HbA1c、体重、BMI、TC、TG、LDL-C均有明显下降(P均<0.01)。C-肽(空腹及餐后2h)未发现明显变化(P>0.05)。低血糖发生率为3.23%。结论艾塞那肽联合二甲双胍能有效地控制T2DM患者的血糖,减轻体重,且发生低血糖的风险低。     

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

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

诺和锐30治疗2型糖尿病前后血糖及胰岛素抵抗指标变化及临床意义

目的 探讨2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者诺和锐30与诺和灵30R治疗前后血糖、胰岛素抵抗及血脂等指标间的相关性.方法 将62例口服降糖药血糖控制欠佳的T2DM患者随机分为诺和锐30组(32例)和诺和灵30R组(30例),分别给予诺和锐30及诺和灵30R治疗,共治疗16周,治疗前后行高胰岛素正糖钳夹试验,并测定糖化血红蛋白A1(HbA1c)、空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后2小时血糖(2hPBG)及计算葡萄糖输注率(M值)等,同时评估低血糖发生率.结果 两组患者治疗后HbA1c、FBG、2hPBG下降(P<0.05)、M值上升(P<0.05);诺和锐30组治疗后2hPBG、HBA1c低于诺和灵30组,M值高于诺和灵30R组,低血糖事件发生率小于诺和灵30R组(P<0.05).结论 诺和锐30能更好地模拟生理性胰岛素分泌,疗效确切,安全性高;血糖、胰岛素抵抗、低血糖发生率等指标的监测能有效评价药物疗效.     

不同比例抗阻-有氧联合训练对2型糖尿病患者降糖作用的观察

目的观察不同比例抗阻-有氧联合训练对2型糖尿病患者降糖的作用,为2型糖尿病患者训练提供最佳方案。方法将42例2型糖尿病患者平均分为高抗-有氧联合训练组16例(A组)、低抗-有氧联合训练组16例(B组)、空白对照组10例(C组)。三组患者均予相同的降糖、降脂等基础治疗,疗程均为8周。在训练前后分别进行口服葡萄糖耐量试验评价空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后两小时血糖(2h PBG)、糖化血红蛋白(Hb A1c)水平及胰岛素敏感性(ISI)等指标。结果三组患者治疗前各项指标比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。疗程结束后,A、B两组患者的FBG、2h PBG、Hb A1c及ISI水平较C组均出现好转,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);与A组相比,B组患者在改善FBG、2h PBG、Hb A1c及ISI水平方面更加显著(P0.05)。结论高抗-有氧联合训练及低抗-有氧联合训练都可以有效改善2型糖尿病患者的血糖水平和胰岛素敏感性的作用,但低抗-有氧联合训练对于改善胰岛素敏感性治疗效果要优于高抗-有氧联合训练。     

Comparison of basal insulin added to oral agents versus twice-daily premixed insulin as initial insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of adding once-daily basal insulin versus switching to twice-daily premixed insulin in type 2 diabetic patients insufficiently controlled by oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a 24-week, multinational, multicenter, open, parallel group clinical trial, 371 insulin-naive patients with poor glycemic control (fasting blood glucose [FBG] >/=120 mg/dl, HbA(1c) 7.5-10.5%) on OADs (sulfonylurea plus metformin) were randomized to once-daily morning insulin glargine plus glimepiride and metformin (glargine plus OAD) or to 30% regular/70% human NPH insulin (70/30) twice daily without OADs. Insulin dosage was titrated to target FBG 相似文献   

重组甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病有效性及安全性临床观察

目的观察使用预混胰岛素治疗血糖控制不佳的2型糖尿病（T2DM）患者,改用重组甘精胰岛素治疗的有效性、安全性。方法采用自身对照的研究方式,共70例T2DM患者入组。所有患者停用预混胰岛素,启用基础胰岛素,治疗12周。观察血糖控制及低血糖发生情况。结果研究结束时受试者糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）、空腹血糖（FBG）、餐后血糖（PBG）水平均较前明显下降,有9例（12.9%）受试者发生低血糖事件12次,均为一般性低血糖。结论重组甘精胰岛素较预混胰岛素在降低血糖、减少低血糖发生方面更具优势。     

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy: repaglinide plus metformin versus nateglinide plus metformin

OBJECTIVE: An open-label, parallel-group, randomized, multicenter trial was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of repaglinide versus nateglinide, when used in a combination regimen with metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 192) had HbA(1c) >7% and < or =12% during previous treatment with a sulfonylurea, metformin, or low-dose Glucovance (glyburide < or =2.5 mg, metformin < or =500 mg). After a 4-week metformin run-in therapy period (doses escalated to 1,000 mg b.i.d.), patients were randomized to addition of repaglinide (n = 96) (1 mg/meal, maximum 4 mg/meal) or nateglinide (n = 96) (120 mg/meal, reduced to 60 mg if needed) to the regimen for 16 weeks. Glucose, insulin, and glucagon were assessed after a liquid test meal at baseline and week 16. RESULTS: Final HbA(1c) values were lower for repaglinide/metformin treatment than for nateglinide/metformin (7.1 vs. 7.5%). Repaglinide/metformin therapy showed significantly greater mean reductions of HbA(1c) (-1.28 vs. -0.67%; P < 0.001) and of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (-39 vs. -21 mg/dl; P = 0.002). Self-monitoring of blood glucose profiles were significantly lower for repaglinide/metformin before breakfast, before lunch, and at 2:00 A.M. Changes in the area under the curve of postprandial glucose, insulin, or glucagon peaks after a test meal were not significantly different for the two treatment groups during this study. Median final doses were 5.0 mg/day for repaglinide and 360 mg/day for nateglinide. Safety assessments were comparable for the two regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of repaglinide to metformin therapy resulted in reductions of HbA(1c) and FPG values that were significantly greater than the reductions observed for addition of nateglinide.