This 52-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was designed to compare rosiglitazone/metformin fixed-dose combination therapy with combination sulphonylurea plus metformin therapy in overweight individuals with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Individuals with inadequate glycaemic control (HbA (1c)> or =7%) while on metformin monotherapy (> or =0.85 g/day) entered a 4-week run-in period during which they received metformin 2 g/day. At the end of the run-in, individuals with fasting plasma glucose > or =7.0 mmol/l were randomized to treatment with metformin (2 g/day) and either rosiglitazone (4 mg/day; RSG+MET [N=294]) or a sulphonylurea (glibenclamide 5 mg/day or gliclazide 80 mg/day; SU+MET [N=302]). Medications were up-titrated to maximum tolerated doses (rosiglitazone 8 mg, glibenclamide 15 mg or gliclazide 320 mg plus metformin 2 g/day) during the first 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the change in HbA (1c) from baseline after 52 weeks of treatment.
RSG+MET was non-inferior to SU+MET with respect to changes in HbA (1c) after one year of treatment (DeltaHbA (1c)= -0.78% and -0.86%, respectively; treatment difference =0.09%, 95% CI=-0.08, 0.25). The HbA (1c) reductions with RSG+MET, but not SU+MET, were accompanied by significant improvements in measures of beta-cell function including proinsulin:insulin ratio. The degree of beta-cell failure was significantly greater with SU+MET compared to RSG+MET as measured by the coefficient of failure (0.543 vs. 0.055 HbA (1c)%/year, respectively, p=0.0002). The proportion of individuals who experienced hypoglycaemic events was significantly (p<0.0001) lower with RSG+MET (6%) than with SU+MET (30%). Diastolic ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) were also reduced following one year of treatment with RSG+MET but not SU+MET. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.
Fixed-dose combination therapy with rosiglitazone/metformin is non-inferior to sulphonylurea plus metformin combination therapy in reducing HbA (1c) over one year of treatment. Improvements in measures of beta-cell function suggest that the improvements in glycaemic control may be better maintained in long-term therapy with the rosiglitazone/metformin combination.
"However, despite the various available treatment options to improve glycaemic control, many patients do not reach treatment targets. In addition, sulphonylurea derivatives and glitinides, which increase secretion of insulin, are associated with clinically important side effects such as weight gain and hypoglycaemia 1,2. Novel treatment strategies are therefore required that aid in achieving therapeutic targets without inducing weight gain or hypoglycaemia. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Aims Sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) reabsorbs glucose and sodium in the renal proximal tubule. Dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, targets hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes by increasing renal glucose excretion. To investigate whether the parallel occurring sodium loss would have diuretic-like physiologic effects, we compared dapagliflozin and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) effects on 24-h blood pressure (BP), body weight, plasma volume and glomerular filtration rate (GFR).
Methods In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, 75 subjects with type 2 diabetes were assigned placebo, dapagliflozin 10 mg/day, or HCTZ 25 mg/day. Changes from baseline BP, body weight, plasma volume and GFR were assessed after 12 weeks of treatment.
Results Subjects’ mean age was 56 years, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) duration 6.3 years, and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7.5%. Treatment with placebo, dapagliflozin or HCTZ resulted in changes from baseline in 24-h ambulatory mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) of −0.9 (95%CI −4.2, +2.4), −3.3 (95%CI −6.8, +0.2), and −6.6 (95%CI −9.9, −3.2) mmHg, respectively at week 12, adjusted for baseline SBP. Body weight decreased with dapagliflozin and HCTZ. In a sub-study plasma volume appeared to decrease with dapagliflozin but did not change with placebo or HCTZ treatment. Dapagliflozin induced a greater reduction in GFR (−10.8%; 95%CI −14.6, −6.7) relative to placebo (−2.9%; 95% CI −6.9, +1.2) or HCTZ (−3.4%; 95%CI −7.3, +0.6).
Conclusions Dapagliflozin-induced SGLT2 inhibition for 12 weeks is associated with reductions in 24-h BP, body weight, GFR and possibly plasma volume. Cumulatively, these effects suggest that dapagliflozin may have a diuretic-like capacity to lower BP in addition to beneficial effects on glycaemic control.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background and Aim. Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease that has a great impact on patients and society. Metformin monotherapy is capable of maintaining a target glycemic control only for a short term. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of combination therapy of metformin with any antidiabetic agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.
Methods. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of combination therapy of metformin with various antidiabetic agents in T2DM failing metformin alone were identified.
Results. Eight studies were identified in our paper. Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) were as effective as dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP IV inhs) in reducing HbA1c value (pooled mean difference −0.03%; 95% CI −0.16 to 0.10%). In comparison between TZDs and sulphonylureas (SUs), TZDs reduced fasting plasma insulin (FPI) more effectively than SUs (pool mean difference −5.72 μU/mL; 95% CI −8.21 to −3.22 μU/mL, P < 0.00001), but no significant differences were detected in the effects on HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (pooled mean difference −2.19 mg/dL; 95% CI −11.32 to 6.94 mg/dL, P = 0.64).
Conclusions. Our study showed that TZDs reduced FPG better than did DPP IV inhs and decreased FPI more than did SUs.
"Glitazones work by activating peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ and sensitizing tissues such as the liver, skeleton muscle and adipose tissue to insulin. Glitazone monotherapy and glitazone-metformin combination have a lower risk of hypoglycemia than sulphonylureas monotherapy or sulphonylureas-metformin combinations.56,57 DPP-4 increases glucagon-like peptide 1 levels and lowers blood glucose levels via stimulation of insulin, only at meals or in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations and inhibition of glucagon secretion. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Hypoglycemia is a common finding in both daily clinical practice and acute care settings. The causes of severe hypoglycemia (SH) are multi-factorial and the major etiologies are iatrogenic, infectious diseases with sepsis and tumor or autoimmune diseases. With the advent of aggressive lowering of HbA1c values to achieve optimal glycemic control, patients are at increased risk of hypoglycemic episodes. Iatrogenic hypoglycemia can cause recurrent morbidity, sometime irreversible neurologic complications and even death, and further preclude maintenance of euglycemia over a lifetime of diabetes. Recent studies have shown that hypoglycemia is associated with adverse outcomes in many acute illnesses. In addition, hypoglycemia is associated with increased mortality among elderly and non-diabetic hospitalized patients. Clinicians should have high clinical suspicion of subtle symptoms of hypoglycemia and provide prompt treatment. Clinicians should know that hypoglycemia is associated with considerable adverse outcomes in many acute critical illnesses. In order to reduce hypoglycemia-associated morbidity and mortality, timely health education programs and close monitoring should be applied to those diabetic patients presenting to the Emergency Department with SH. ED disposition strategies should be further validated and justified to achieve balance between the benefits of euglycemia and the risks of SH. We discuss relevant issues regarding hypoglycemia in emergency and critical care settings.
Yonsei medical journal 11/2011; 52(6):898-908. DOI:10.3349/ymj.2011.52.6.898 · 1.29 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.