Similar HbA1c Reduction Research Articles

Vildagliptin therapy and hypoglycaemia in Muslim type 2 diabetes patients during Ramadan

To compare hypoglycaemic events, glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and changes in bodyweight in metformin-treated Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes receiving adjunctive treatment with vildagliptin or gliclazide during Ramadan fasting. Data were collected from Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes attending primary care practices in North West London, whose HbA(1c) was > 8.5% despite treatment with metformin 2 g daily before Ramadan and who received gliclazide 160 mg twice daily (n = 26) or vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily (n = 26) in addition to metformin. Hypoglycaemic events, HbA(1c) and weight were recorded 2 weeks before and 10 days after the Ramadan fast. All patients received education about how to identify and manage hypoglycaemia during Ramadan. During Ramadan, at least one hypoglycaemic event (defined as blood glucose < 3.5 mmol/l with or without symptoms) was recorded in two patients receiving vildagliptin (7.7%) and 16 patients receiving gliclazide [61.5%; difference between groups -53.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -74.9 to -26.3, p < 0.001]. Vildagliptin was associated with a reduction in the mean number of hypoglycaemic events during Ramadan compared with before Ramadan, whereas gliclazide was associated with an increase (least squares mean difference between groups -0.66, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.13, p = 0.0168). Both gliclazide and vildagliptin were associated with similar reductions in HbA(1c) and a small, but insignificant, increase in weight. Appropriate treatment adjustments can lead to improved diabetes management during Ramadan, with avoidance of significant weight gain and improved glucose control without hypoglycaemia. The addition of vildagliptin to metformin therapy during Ramadan in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes was associated with a reduction in the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Long‐term 2‐year safety and efficacy of vildagliptin compared with rosiglitazone in drug‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

To assess the long-term safety and the sustained glycaemic control of vildagliptin compared with rosiglitazone over 2-year treatment in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. This was an additional 80-week, multicentre, double-blind and active-controlled extension to a 24-week core study comparing the treatments of vildagliptin (50 mg b.i.d., n = 396) to rosiglitazone (8 mg q.d., n = 202). The primary efficacy variable was the mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from the core study baseline (day 1) to the end of 104 weeks (the extension endpoint). Vildagliptin and rosiglitazone showed statistically significant and sustained HbA1c reductions from a core mean baseline of 8.6 and 8.7% to 7.8 and 7.3% respectively (both significant, p < 0.001). However, rosiglitazone-treated patients showed significantly greater mean HbA1c reductions (mean difference 0.62%, s.e. 0.13, p < 0.001) compared with vildagliptin. The overall lipid profile significantly improved with vildagliptin compared to rosiglitazone treatment. Body weight remained unchanged in vildagliptin-treated patients despite improvements in glycaemic control but significantly increased (mean change from core study baseline 4.67 kg) in rosiglitazone-treated patients (p < 0.001). Notably, a lower incidence of peripheral oedema was seen with vildagliptin (4.6%) compared with rosiglitazone treatment (11.1%). More serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in vildagliptin- than rosiglitazone-treated patients (12.5 and 9.1% respectively), but only one SAE each in both treatment group was suspected to be related to study drug. Three non-study drug-related deaths (vildagliptin: 2 and rosiglitazone: 1) were reported. Four mild hypoglycaemic events were observed with vildagliptin. This study showed that the similar short-term HbA1c reductions seen with both vildagliptin and rosiglitazone treatments were more durable after 104 weeks of treatment with rosiglitazone than vildagliptin. However, this greater durability with rosiglitazone was at the expense of weight gain (almost 5 kg), higher incidences of peripheral oedema and a less favourable plasma lipid profile compared with vildagliptin.

Translating science into clinical practice: focus on vildagliptin in combination with metformin

Vildagliptin is a potent and selective oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor that improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by increasing both alpha- and beta-cell responsiveness to glucose. The efficacy, tolerability and safety of the combination of vildagliptin and metformin in the treatment of T2DM have been established in numerous trials in the extensive vildagliptin clinical programme. As add-on therapy in patients with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin, vildagliptin produces clinically significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose, is well tolerated, and is associated with absence of weight gain and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. Compared with thiazolidinedione add-on treatment, vildagliptin is associated with similar significant reductions in HbA1c without the weight gain seen with the former. Compared with sulfonylurea add-on treatment, vildagliptin is associated with similar efficacy in controlling glycaemia but absence of weight gain and a markedly lower risk of hypoglycaemia. In drug-naive patients, single-tablet combinations of vildagliptin/metformin 50/500 and 50/1000 mg bid produced significantly greater reductions in HbA1c than monotherapy with either agent and were well tolerated, with no weight gain and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. The combination of vildagliptin and metformin poses numerous advantages in the treatment of T2DM.

Pioglitazone stimulates AMP-activated protein kinase signalling and increases the expression of genes involved in adiponectin signalling, mitochondrial function and fat oxidation in human skeletal muscle in vivo: a randomised trial.

The molecular mechanisms by which thiazolidinediones improve insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes are not fully understood. We hypothesised that pioglitazone would activate the adenosine 5'-monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway and increase the expression of genes involved in adiponectin signalling, NEFA oxidation and mitochondrial function in human skeletal muscle. A randomised, double-blind, parallel study was performed in 26 drug-naive type 2 diabetes patients treated with: (1) pioglitazone (n = 14) or (2) aggressive nutritional therapy (n = 12) to reduce HbA(1c) to levels observed in the pioglitazone-treated group. Participants were assigned randomly to treatment using a table of random numbers. Before and after 6 months, patients reported to the Clinical Research Center of the Texas Diabetes Institute for a vastus lateralis muscle biopsy followed by a 180 min euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic (80 mU m(-2) min(-1)) clamp. All patients in the pioglitazone (n = 14) or nutritional therapy (n = 12) group were included in the analysis. Pioglitazone significantly increased plasma adiponectin concentration by 79% and reduced fasting plasma NEFA by 35% (both p < 0.01). Following pioglitazone, insulin-stimulated glucose disposal increased by 30% (p < 0.01), and muscle AMPK and acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) phosphorylation increased by 38% and 53%, respectively (p < 0.05). Pioglitazone increased mRNA levels for adiponectin receptor 1 and 2 genes (ADIPOR1, ADIPOR2), peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma, coactivator 1 gene (PPARGC1) and multiple genes involved in mitochondrial function and fat oxidation. Despite a similar reduction in HbA(1c) and similar improvement in insulin sensitivity with nutritional therapy, there were no significant changes in muscle AMPK and ACC phosphorylation, or the expression of ADIPOR1, ADIPOR2, PPARGC1 and genes involved in mitochondrial function and fat oxidation. No adverse (or unexpected) effects or side effects were reported from the study. Pioglitazone increases plasma adiponectin levels, stimulates muscle AMPK signalling and increases the expression of genes involved in adiponectin signalling, mitochondrial function and fat oxidation. These changes may represent an important cellular mechanism by which thiazolidinediones improve skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. NCT 00816218 FUNDING: This trial was funded by National Institutes of Health Grant DK24092, VA Merit Award, GCRC Grant RR01346, Executive Research Committee Research Award from the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, American Diabetes Association Junior Faculty Award, American Heart Association National Scientist Development Grant, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America Grant and Canadian Institute of Health Research Grant.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes*

To assess the addition of sitagliptin to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled [haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) 7-11%] on metformin monotherapy. Patients (n = 273) on metformin (>/=1500 mg/day) were randomized to receive the addition of once-daily placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg or rosiglitazone 8 mg in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio for 18 weeks. The efficacy analysis was based on the all-patients-treated population using an analysis of co-variance with change in HbA(1c) from baseline as the primary endpoint. The mean baseline HbA(1c) was 7.7% for the entire cohort. After 18 weeks, both active add-on therapies led to greater improvements in HbA(1c) from baseline: -0.73% for sitagliptin (p < 0.001 vs. placebo) and -0.79% for rosiglitazone compared with -0.22% for placebo. No difference was observed between the sitagliptin and rosiglitazone treatments (0.06% [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.14 to 0.25]). The proportion of patients achieving an HbA(1c) < 7% was greater with sitagliptin (55%) and rosiglitazone (63%) compared with placebo (38%). Body weight increased from baseline with rosiglitazone (1.5 kg) compared with body weight reduction with sitagliptin (-0.4 kg) and placebo (-0.8 kg). The difference in body weight between the sitagliptin and rosiglitazone groups was 1.9 kg (95% CI: 1.3-2.5). In a prespecified analysis, the proportion of patients experiencing a greater than 3-kg increase in body weight was 21% in the rosiglitazone group compared with 2% in both the sitagliptin and placebo groups. Both active treatments were generally well tolerated, with no increased risk of hypoglycaemia or gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo. In this 18-week study, the addition of sitagliptin was effective and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy. Treatment with sitagliptin produced similar reductions in HbA(1c) compared with the addition of rosiglitazone.

Latest news and product developments

Latest news and product developments

A randomized clinical trial comparing low–glycemic index versus ADA dietary education among individuals with type 2 diabetes

Objective We compared the effects of a low glycemic index (GI) diet with the American Diabetes Association (ADA) diet on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods Forty individuals with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-GI or an ADA diet. The intervention, consisting of eight educational sessions (monthly for the first 6 mo and then at months 8 and 10), focused on a low-GI or an ADA diet. Data on demographics, diet, physical activity, psychosocial factors, and diabetes medication use were assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 mo. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare the two groups on HbA1c, diabetic medication use, blood lipids, weight, diet, and physical activity. Results Participants (53% female, mean age 53.5 y) were predominantly white with a mean body mass index of 35.8 kg/m 2. Although both interventions achieved similar reductions in mean HbA1c at 6 mo and 12 mo, the low-GI diet group was less likely to add or increase dosage of diabetic medications (odds ratio 0.26, P = 0.01). Improvements in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triacylglycerols, and weight loss were similar between groups. Conclusion Compared with the ADA diet, the low-GI diet achieved equivalent control of HbA1c using less diabetic medication. Despite its limited size, this trial suggests that a low-GI diet is a viable alternative to the ADA diet. Findings should be evaluated in a larger randomized controlled trial.

Effects of Pioglitazone in Combination with Metformin or a Sulfonylurea Compared to a Fixed-Dose Combination of Metformin and Glibenclamide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of co-administration of pioglitazone with metformin or a sulfonylurea (SU), with a fixed-dose combination of metformin and glibenclamide on glycemic control and beta-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients (n = 250) treated with metformin (<or=3 g/day) or an SU as monotherapy for >3 months and with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) between 7.5% and 11% inclusive were randomized to receive either pioglitazone (15-30 mg/day) as add-on therapy to metformin or an SU or a fixed-dose combination of metformin (400 mg) and glibenclamide (2.5 mg) (up to three tablets per day) for 6 months. HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were measured at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. C-peptide levels were measured at baseline and 6 months, and post-challenge glucose and insulin responses were measured. After 6 months, pioglitazone-based and fixed-dose metformin + glibenclamide resulted in similar reductions in HbA(1c) (-1.11% vs. -1.29%, respectively; P = 0.192) and FPG (-2.13 vs. -1.81 mmol/L, respectively; P = 0.370). Patients treated with pioglitazone for 6 months had significantly reduced C-peptide levels compared with baseline (-0.09 nmol/L, P = 0.001), while patients receiving fixed-dose metformin + glibenclamide combination had slightly increased C-peptide levels (+0.04 nmol/L, P = 0.08). Pioglitazone treatment also improved post-challenge insulin responses. Co-administration of pioglitazone with metformin or an SU is an effective alternative to fixed-dose metformin + glibenclamide combination for patients with type 2 diabetes. The complementary effects of pioglitazone with either metformin or an SU may also have the potential to preserve beta-cell function and delay the progression of type 2 diabetes.

Differential effects of rosiglitazone and insulin glargine on inflammatory markers, glycemic control, and lipids in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes remains a difficult clinical challenge characterized by progressive insulin deficiency and frequent cardiovascular events requiring multiple therapeutic decisions. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed the comparative effects of rosiglitazone (RSG) and insulin glargine (IG) on inflammatory biomarkers, glycemic control, and lipids. Forty subjects with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on sulfonylurea and metformin therapy received 24 weeks of add-on therapy with either RSG 4 mg daily or IG 10 units daily. Subjects on RSG with fasting glucose values >120 mg/dl at 12 weeks were increased from 4 to 8 mg. Subjects on IG increased insulin doses until fasting glucose was <120 mg/dl. Markers of glycemic control and inflammation including HbA1c, hsCRP, PAI-1, plasma F2-isoprostanes, and lipids were measured at baseline, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. RSG and IG demonstrated similar efficacy in reducing HbA1c levels by 1.5 and 1.4%, respectively, with greater weight gain with RSG. Hypoglycemic events occurred with equal frequency. IG did not reduce hsCRP, but RSG reduced hsCRP levels 45% from baseline. Both IG and RSG reduced F2-isoprostanes similarly. IG did not affect PAI-1 levels, but did reduce total, LDL, and non-HDL cholesterol levels. Despite similar HbA1c reductions with RSG and IG, differential effects were found on inflammatory biomarkers and lipids that deserve consideration in the clinical decision process of selecting a therapeutic agent.

Recognition of fasting or overall hyperglycaemia when starting insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice

Objective. The efficacy of various regimens of initial insulin treatment in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes was compared with regard to diurnal glucose variation. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Setting. Insulin therapy initiated on hospital wards, follow-up as outpatients for 12 months. Subjects. Fifty-two type 2 diabetic patients (HbA1c >7.5%, mean 9.8%) on maximal oral therapy. Interventions. Insulin only (IO), bedtime insulin with sulphonylurea (glipizide) (IS), or bedtime insulin with metformin (IM). Main outcome measures. HbA1c and body weight. Results. HbA1c decreased on average by 1.8, 1.0 and 1.5 percentage points in the IO, IS, and IM groups, respectively (p always <0.025). Body weight increased, most in the IO patients (+6.2 kg), least in the IM patients (+3.4 kg). Analysing all treatment groups combined, a similar HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with overall hyperglycaemia (low fasting plasma glucose/HbA1c ratio) and in patients with fasting hyperglycaemia (high fasting plasma glucose/HbA1c ratio). Within the overall hyperglycaemia group, the IS and IM patients had smaller decreases in HbA1c (−1.5 and −1.3 percentage points, respectively) than the IO patients (−2.7 percentage points). On the other hand, within the fasting hyperglycaemia group HbA1c reductions were −1.2, −0.8 and −1.5 percentage points, in the IO, IS, and IM groups, respectively. Conclusion. Not all poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients should automatically be treated with an oral agent and bedtime insulin. Two daily insulin injections is a valid choice, particularly if the patient has overall hyperglycaemia.

Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: Insulin Glargine vs. NPH Insulin Both in Combination with Glimepiride

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients often fail to achieve adequate glycemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Insulin has been shown to improve glycemic control in these patients but with increased risk of hypoglycemia. This study compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine and NPH insulin, both in combination with a once-daily fixed dose of glimepiride, in terms of glycemic control and incidence of hypoglycemia. In this open-label, 24-week randomized trial in ten Latin American countries, T2DM patients poorly controlled on OADs (HbA1c > or = 7.5 and < or = 10.5%) received glimepiride plus insulin glargine (n = 231) or NPH insulin (n = 250) using a forced titration algorithm. The primary endpoint was the equivalence of 24-week mean changes in HbA1c. Insulin glargine and NPH insulin achieved similar HbA1c reductions (adjusted mean difference -0.047; 90% CI -0.232, 0.138; per-protocol analysis). Confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia was significantly lower with insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin (16.9 vs. 30.0%; p <0.01; safety analysis). Patients receiving insulin glargine were significantly more likely to achieve HbA1c levels < 7.0% without hypoglycemia (27 vs. 17%; p = 0.014; per-protocol analysis). There was a more pronounced treatment satisfaction improvement with insulin glargine vs. NPH insulin (p <0.02; full analysis). The proportion of patients who lost time from work or normal activities due to diabetes was lower with insulin glargine vs. NPH (1.8 vs. 3.3%; full analysis). In patients with T2DM, inadequately controlled on OADs, once-daily insulin glargine plus glimepiride is effective in improving metabolic control with a reduced incidence of nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin.

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Glulisine in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Insulin glulisine (glulisine), a human insulin analogue with a rapid-acting time-action profile, has been developed to fulfil the mealtime (bolus) insulin requirement in patients with diabetes. The aim of this multinational, multi-centre, controlled, open-label, randomized, parallel-group study was to compare the efficacy and safety of insulin glulisine (glulisine) to that of insulin lispro (lispro) in adults diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Of the 683 patients randomized, 672 received treatment (339 patients received glulisine, 333 patients received lispro). Over the 26-week study, a similar reduction in mean HbA1c occurred in both groups (adjusted mean change from baseline -0.14% in both groups). The basal insulin dose was relatively unchanged from baseline in the glulisine group but increased in the lispro group (glulisine: 0.12 IU vs. lispro: 1.82 IU; p = 0.0001). As a consequence, total daily insulin dose decreased in the glulisine group but increased in the lispro group (glulisine: -0.86 IU vs. lispro: 1.01 IU; p = 0.0123). There was no relevant difference between the two groups in the reporting of symptomatic hypoglycaemia (overall, nocturnal and severe). This study demonstrates that glulisine provides equivalent glycaemic control to lispro. The clinical relevance of any difference in total daily insulin dose remains to be established.

Pioneer Study: PPARγ Activation Results in Overall Improvement of Clinical and Metabolic Markers Associated with Insulin Resistance Independent of Long-term Glucose Control

New scores and biochemical markers have recently been published for diagnosis of insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction (such as intact proinsulin, adiponectin, IRISII-score). One goal of this 6-month prospective controlled study was to evaluate the impact of pioglitazone (45 mg) vs. glimepiride (1-6 mg, in the intend to optimize therapy) on these markers. Observation parameters were: IRIS-II score, HOMA-score, ATP III score, HbA (1c), fasting glucose, lipids, intact proinsulin, adiponectin, and adverse events. The study was completed by 173 patients (66 female, 107 male, age +/- STD: 63 +/- 8 years, disease duration: 7.2 +/- 7.2 years, HbA (1c): 7.53 +/- 0.85 %, pioglitazone arm: 89 patients). The groups were not different for any of the observation parameters at baseline, and a similar reduction in HbA (1c) was seen in both groups (p < 0.001). In the pioglitazone group, reductions were observed for the IRIS-II and HOMA scores (p < 0.001 vs. glimepiride at endpoint) fasting glucose (p < 0.001), insulin (p < 0.001), LDL/HDL ratio (p < 0.001), hsCRP (p < 0.05), intact proinsulin (p < 0.001), and an increase was seen in HDL (p < 0.001), adiponectin (p < 0.001) and BMI (p < 0.001). In conclusion, treatment with pioglitazone resulted in an improvement of markers for insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction, independent from blood glucose control. Adiponectin, intact proinsulin, and the IRIS-II score may be suitable parameters for monitoring of these additional beneficial therapeutic effects.

Will pulmonary insulin delivery help improve type 1 and type 2 diabetes care?

Will pulmonary insulin delivery help improve type 1 and type 2 diabetes care?