Article

Exenatide plus metformin compared with metformin alone on β-cell function in patients with Type 2 diabetes.

Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pavia, Pavia Metabolic Unit, Regional Hospital, Varese Ospedale Pesenti Fenaroli, Alzano Lombardo, Bergamo Hospital Centre of Diabetes, Sant'Angelo Lodigiano, Lodi RSA Villa Mafalda, Borgo San Siro, PAVIA Fondazione Ospedale della Carità, Casalbuttano, Cremona, Italy.
Diabetic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.06). 04/2012; 29(12). DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03699.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Aim  To quantify how much exenatide added to metformin improves β-cell function, and to evaluate the impact on glycaemic control, insulin resistance and inflammation compared with metformin alone. Methods  A total of 174 patients with Type 2 diabetes with poor glycaemic control were instructed to take metformin for 8 ± 2 months, then they were randomly assigned to exenatide (5 μg twice a day for the first 4 weeks and forced titration to 10 μg twice a day thereafter) or placebo for 12 months. At 12 months we evaluated anthropometric measurements, glycaemic control, insulin resistance and β-cell function variables, glucagon, adiponectin, high sensitivity-C reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α. Before and after 12 months, patients underwent a combined euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic and hyperglycaemic clamp, with subsequent arginine stimulation. Results  Exenatide + metformin gave a greater decrease in body weight, glycaemic control, fasting plasma proinsulin and insulin and their ratio, homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and glucagon values and a greater increase in C-peptide levels, homeostasis model assessment β-cell function index (HOMA-β) and adiponectin compared with placebo + metformin. Exenatide + metformin decreased waist and hip circumference, and reduced concentrations of high sensitivity-C reactive protein and tumour necrosis factor-α. Exenatide + metformin gave a greater increase in M value (+34%), and disposition index (+55%) compared with placebo + metformin; first (+21%) and second phase (+34%) C-peptide response to glucose and C-peptide response to arginine (+25%) were also improved by exenatide + metformin treatment, but not by placebo + metformin. Conclusion  Exenatide is effective not only on glycaemic control, but also in protecting β-cells and in reducing inflammation. © 2012 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2012 Diabetes UK.

0 Followers
 · 
309 Views
  • Source
    • "Considering that diabetes per se is a risk factor for acute pancreatitis, it is not yet established whether exenatide can induce this serious adverse event (Ahrén, 2011). Exenatide significantly improves glycaemic control and shows greater decrease in body weight if used in combination with metformin (Derosa et al., 2012). Exenatide long-acting formulation Ex(OW) results in greater improvements in glycemic control compared with regular exenatide, but shows lower HbA1c reductions compared with liraglutide once daily (DURATION program) (J.B. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Insulin therapy remains the standard of care for achieving and maintaining adequate glycemic control, especially in hospitalized patients with critical and noncritical illness. Insulin therapy is more effective against elevated fasting glycaemia but less in reduction of postprandial hyperglycaemia. It is associated with a high incidence of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Contrary, GLP-1 mimetic therapy improves postprandial glycaemia without the hypoglycaemia and weight gain associated with aggressive insulin therapy. Moreover, it has potential to reduce cardiovascular related morbidity. However, its increased immunogenicity and severe gastrointestinal adverse effects present a huge burden on patients. Thus, a right combination of basal insulin which has lowering effect on fasting plasma glucose and GLP-1 mimetic with its lowering effect on postprandial plasma glucose with minimal gastrointestinal adverse effects, seems the right therapy choice from a clinical point of view for some diabetic patients. In this article, we discuss the pros and cons of use of insulin analogues and GLP-1 mimetics that are associated with the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
    Life sciences 01/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.lfs.2013.12.210 · 2.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Metformin is generally recommended as first-line treatment in type 2 diabetes, especially in overweight patients, but in recent years new indications for its use have emerged. Metformin has been found to be safe and efficacious both as monotherapy and in combination with all oral antidiabetic agents and insulins. If metformin use during pregnancy and the lactation period is supported by few data, it could be indicated for women with polycystic ovary syndrome, since it could diminish circulating androgens and insulin resistance, thus ameliorating the ovulation rate. Metformin seems to reduce cancer risk, which appears to be increased in diabetics, and is a promising agent for oncoprevention and chemotherapy combinations. Moreover, metformin could find a place in the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lactic acidosis could be decreased by avoiding metformin use in patients with hypovolemia, sepsis, renal impairment, hypoxic respiratory diseases and heart failure, in the preoperative period and before intravenous injection of contrast media.
    11/2012; 8(5):907-17. DOI:10.5114/aoms.2012.31622
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AIMS: To evaluate which triple oral therapy between metformin + pioglitazone + sitagliptin and metformin + pioglitazone + glibenclamide can be more useful in improving glycaemic control and should be preferred in clinical practice. METHODS: During the 2-year run-in period, patients were instructed to take metformin monotherapy for the first year, then a combination of metformin and pioglitazone for the second year, then patients were randomized to add glibenclamide or sitagliptin to the dual combination of metformin and pioglitazone for another year. RESULTS: Body weight reached with sitagliptin at 36 months was lower than that reached with glibenclamide. Fasting plasma insulin and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance were significantly increased by triple therapy with glibenclamide and decreased by that with sitagliptin. While sitagliptin did not change homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function, this value was significantly increased by glibenclamide. Fasting plasma proinsulin was not influenced by triple oral therapy including glibenclamide, while it was decreased by the therapy including sitagliptin. Both glibenclamide and sitagliptin triple therapies increased C-peptide. Triple oral therapy with sitagliptin better improved β-cell function measures compared with the glibenclamide therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin should be preferred to glibenclamide as an addition to the metformin + pioglitazone combination for its better protection of β-cell secretion and its neutral effect on body weight. © 2013 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2013 Diabetes UK.
    Diabetic Medicine 02/2013; 30(7). DOI:10.1111/dme.12158 · 3.06 Impact Factor
Show more