Publications (16)57.51 Total impact
-
Article: Early and intensive therapy for management of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Results of recent randomized controlled trials demonstrated the ability of early and intensive therapy to reduce the risk of microvascular complications. However, controversy surrounds the ability of such therapy to reduce the risk for macrovascular complications. This article reviews results from recent clinical trials in patients with T2DM as well as extended follow-up of earlier trials to determine if early, intensive, and individualized therapy aimed at the underlying pathogenesis of the disease could decrease the risk for long-term complications, including cardiovascular disease (CVD). Information was obtained by a search of the PUBMED and EMBASE databases using the search terms type 2 diabetes mellitus, glycosylated hemoglobin, pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, early intervention, multifactorial intervention, cardiovascular disease, β-cell function, and antidiabetes therapy for the period between 1995 and 2010. Articles dealing with outcomes trials, impact of therapy on microvascular and macrovascular complications, effects of therapeutic agents on the pathophysiology of T2DM, and the impact of agents on CV risk factors were then preferentially selected for in-depth review. Large-scale clinical trials in patients with T2DM, although largely negative at 5 years for macrovascular end points, suggested benefit for patients with a shorter duration of T2DM (ie, <10 years) and still supported a treatment strategy of early, intensive, and individualized therapy to prevent long-term complications of the disease. In Steno-2, after 13 years of follow-up, early, intensive, multifactorial therapy was associated with a 56% lower risk of all-cause death (P = 0.02) and a 57% lower risk of death from CVD (P = 0.04). In the 10-year follow-up to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, intensive therapy was associated with a significant 15% reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (P = 0.01) and a significant 13% reduction in the risk of death from any cause (P = 0.007). Therapy should be aimed at correcting underlying pathophysiologic defects, including β-cell failure and insulin resistance, and should also correct underlying risk factors for CVD whenever possible. Early and intensive antidiabetes treatment was recommended in patients with T2DM, particularly those with a shorter duration of disease and without a history of CVD. The goal was to safely lower glycosylated hemoglobin to <7%, therefore providing beneficial effects on the risk for complications. Hypoglycemia should be avoided. In addition, less aggressive treatment might be suitable for older patients with longstanding diabetes and a history of CVD events. Clinical trial results also provided support for a second important aspect of individualized treatment for patients with T2DM-multifactorial intervention aimed at controlling CVD risk factors.Clinical Therapeutics 06/2011; 33(6):665-78. · 2.32 Impact Factor -
Article: Overall mortality in diabetes mellitus: where do we stand today?
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Life expectancy for a patient with type 2 diabetes remains substantially shorter than an equivalent individual without diabetes, largely because of a greater risk of cardiovascular disease. Diabetes is also associated with an increased incidence of many types of cancer, suggesting that malignancy may also contribute to higher rates of mortality. Hyperglycemia is one of the key risk factors for diabetes-associated macro- and microvascular disease, and as such, intensive glycemic control is associated with improved outcomes for patients, including a reduction in this risk of death from any cause, when initiated early in the disease course. Recent trials in patients with more advanced disease have failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with intensive glycemic control, although this may reflect their short observation period. Intensive multifactorial therapy, including lifestyle intervention and control of hyperglycemia, hypertension, lipids, thrombosis, and microalbuminuria, is likely to be the best strategy against diabetes-associated macrovascular mortality. However, analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial indicates that there may be a subpopulation of patients who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with intensive therapy and that aggressive intensification of treatment in this group may increase mortality risk. It remains to be determined whether the relationship between diabetes and malignancy is causal or whether they share common risk factors. Current recommendations for a healthy lifestyle based on good diet, physical exercise, and weight management in order to control diabetes-related complications are likely to apply in reducing the risk of many forms of cancer and should be advocated for all patients.Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 06/2011; 13 Suppl 1:S65-74. · 1.93 Impact Factor -
Article: Relationship of insulin dose, A1c lowering, and weight in type 2 diabetes: comparing insulin glargine and insulin detemir.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was conducted to compare dosing and impact of two basal insulin analogs, insulin glargine (glargine) and insulin detemir (detemir), on weight and hemoglobin A1c (A1c). Twenty-two studies of at least 20 weeks in duration in individuals with T2DM initiating glargine/detemir were included. Results were combined using a weighted-average method and a bivariate random effect model. Outcomes included changes in weight, A1c, and insulin dose from study start to end. One study was head-to-head comparison of glargine and detemir. Detemir (four studies) was administered once or twice daily, with 50% starting on detemir once daily but needing therapy intensification. Glargine was used once daily in all 22 studies. The Egger test was borderline significant for change in weight over the course of the treatment for glargine (0.29; 90% confidence interval [CI] -0.01, 0.58), and heterogeneity was not observed for detemir (-0.18; 90% CI -0.59, 0.23). Heterogeneity was observed for change in A1c over the course of the treatment (glargine, -1.19, 90% CI -1.74, -0.63; detemir, -2.65, 90% CI -4.86, -0.45). Nonheterogeneity for change in A1c over the course of the treatment was achieved by excluding five studies for glargine and one study for detemir; however, all studies were included in subsequent analyses. In the unadjusted model, glargine and detemir showed similar results for mean A1c change (-1.4% vs. -1.4%), weight gain (2.5 vs. 1.7 kg), and weight/A1c (1.8 vs. 1.2 kg/%). A significantly higher detemir dose was needed to achieve the same A1c change (51.5 vs. 38.8 U/day). Although absolute weight gain was higher with glargine versus detemir, weight gain per A1c change was similar. A higher detemir dose was required to achieve a similar A1c reduction.Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 12/2010; 12(12):1019-27. · 1.93 Impact Factor -
Article: Reconsideration of severe hypoglycemic events in the treat-to-target trial.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article reevaluates the hypoglycemic episodes reported as severe in the Treat-to-Target Trial comparing insulin glargine and NPH insulin use in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Case report forms from the Treat-to-Target Trial were reviewed to identify additional severe hypoglycemic events and to further characterize those events already identified. Severe hypoglycemia was defined as symptoms consistent with hypoglycemia requiring assistance of another person and associated with either glucose levels < or =56 mg/dL or prompt recovery after oral carbohydrate intake, intravenous glucose administration, or glucagon injection. This analysis confirmed that severe hypoglycemia was similarly uncommon with both insulins (insulin glargine [n = 367], nine patients, 14 events; NPH insulin [n = 389], nine patients, 13 events); all hypoglycemic events for glargine and nine for NPH were treated effectively at home. All severe hypoglycemic episodes were associated with sulfonylurea use. A review of case report forms demonstrated inconsistencies in identification of severe hypoglycemia (seven of 14 severe events for glargine and three of 13 severe events for NPH were coded as moderate). The rate of severe hypoglycemia in this trial was low. Difficulties in gathering and interpreting hypoglycemia data highlight the need for more objective methods.Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 08/2009; 11(8):477-9. · 1.93 Impact Factor -
Article: CPAP therapy of obstructive sleep apnea in type 2 diabetics improves glycemic control during sleep.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are frequently comorbid conditions. OSA is associated with increased insulin resistance, but studies of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) have shown inconsistent effects on glycemic control. However, endpoints such as hemoglobin A1c and insulin sensitivity might not reflect short-term changes in glycemic control during sleep. We used a continuous glucose-monitoring system to measure interstitial glucose every 5 minutes during polysomnography in 20 patients with type 2 diabetes and newly diagnosed OSA. The measurements were repeated after an average of 41 days of CPAP (range 26-96 days). All patients were on a stable diet and medications. Each 30-second epoch of the polysomnogram was matched with a continuous glucose-monitoring system reading, and the sleeping glucose level was calculated as the average for all epochs scored as sleeping. The mean sleeping glucose decreased from untreated (122.0 +/- 61.7 mg/dL) to treated (102.9 +/- 39.4 mg/dL; p = 0.03 by Wilcoxon paired rank test). The sleeping glucose was more stable after treatment, with the median SD decreasing from 20.0 to 13.0 mg/dL (p = 0.005) and the mean difference between maximum and minimum values decreasing from 88 to 57 mg/dL (p= 0.003). The change in the mean hemoglobin A1c from 7.1% to 7.2% was not significant. Our study is limited by the lack of a control group, but the results suggest that sleeping glucose levels decrease and are more stable after patients with type 2 diabetes and OSA are treated with CPAP.Journal of clinical sleep medicine: JCSM: official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 01/2009; 4(6):538-42. · 3.23 Impact Factor -
Article: Lower severe hypoglycemia risk: insulin glargine versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hypoglycemia is a common consequence of achieving tight glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes, with clinical effects ranging from occasional mild discomfort to incapacitation, coma, or in rare cases, death. Severe hypoglycemic events, particularly those resulting in emergency medical intervention or hospitalization, incur substantial medical costs for patients and the healthcare system. Although vigilance is needed for the possibility of severe events, hypoglycemia need not be a barrier to effective glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Data from clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated that the basal insulin analog insulin glargine results in a reduced rate of severe hypoglycemic events compared with conventional insulin therapy such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Overall, use of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin appears to reduce the risk of nocturnal and severe hypoglycemia by 40% to 60% and may result in cost savings. Analyses of hypoglycemia rates from "real-world" clinical practice databases and retrospective analyses of medical claims data also have revealed reduced rates with insulin glargine, consistent with the findings from clinical trials.The American journal of managed care 02/2008; 14(1):25-30. · 2.46 Impact Factor -
Article: Assessing glycemic control with self-monitoring of blood glucose and hemoglobin A(1c) measurements.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) is the gold standard for monitoring glycemic control and serves as a surrogate for diabetes-related complications. Although HbA(1c) measures mean glycemic exposure during the preceding 2 to 3 months, it does not provide iInformation about day-to-day changes in glucose levels. Self-monitoring of blood glucose represents an important adjunct to HbA(1c) because it can distinguish among fasting, preprandial, and postprandial hyperglycemia; detect glycemic excursions; identify hypoglycemia; and provide immediate feedback to patients about the effect of food choices, activity, and medication on glycemic control.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 03/2007; 82(2):229-35; quiz 236. · 5.70 Impact Factor -
Article: Developing a pulmonary insulin delivery system for patients with diabetes.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) do not achieve recommended glycemic goals. Insulin therapy is often delayed, despite its effectiveness in maintaining glycemic control, for reasons such as fear of needles or dislike of the complexity of injections. Inhaled dry powder insulin (IDPI) is approved for preprandial use in both the United States and Europe. Relevant English-language publications were identified through a search of the PubMed database (1980-2007). Search terms included diabetes, in combination with subcutaneous and/or inhaled insulin. A similar search of abstracts from the 2006 American Diabetes Association 66th Annual Scientific Sessions was also performed. Eight clinical studies to date have reported that IDPI consistently improved glycemic control, whether used in combination with longer-acting SC insulin regimens in patients with type 1 or type 2 DM or to supplement or replace oral agent therapy in patients with type 2 DM. Evidence to date suggests that IDPI is associated with an acceptable tolerability profile, with a risk of hypoglycemia similar to that of SC insulin (risk ratios in 2 studies were 0.94 and 0.96, in favor of IDPI). Moreover, no clinically significant changes in pulmonary function have been noted. Patients treated with IDPI in clinical studies reported significantly greater improvements in overall satisfaction with treatment compared with SC insulin (P < 0.01) or oral agent therapy (P = 0.02). IDPI is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of diabetes and may be an option for patients to achieve glycemic control.Clinical Therapeutics 02/2007; 29 Spec No:1271-83. · 2.32 Impact Factor -
Article: Triple therapy in type 2 diabetes: insulin glargine or rosiglitazone added to combination therapy of sulfonylurea plus metformin in insulin-naive patients.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of add-on insulin glargine versus rosiglitazone in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on dual oral therapy with sulfonylurea plus metformin. In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel trial, 217 patients (HbA(1c) [A1C] 7.5-11%, BMI >25 kg/m(2)) on > or =50% of maximal-dose sulfonylurea and metformin received add-on insulin glargine 10 units/day or rosiglitazone 4 mg/day. Insulin glargine was forced-titrated to target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) < or =5.5-6.7 mmol/l (< or =100-120 mg/dl), and rosiglitazone was increased to 8 mg/day any time after 6 weeks if FPG was >5.5 mmol/l. A1C improvements from baseline were similar in both groups (-1.7 vs. -1.5% for insulin glargine vs. rosiglitazone, respectively); however, when baseline A1C was >9.5%, the reduction of A1C with insulin glargine was greater than with rosiglitazone (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine yielded better FPG values than rosiglitazone (-3.6 +/- 0.23 vs. -2.6 +/- 0.22 mmol/l; P = 0.001). Insulin glargine final dose per day was 38 +/- 26 IU vs. 7.1 +/- 2 mg for rosiglitazone. Confirmed hypoglycemic events at plasma glucose <3.9 mmol/l (<70 mg/dl) were slightly greater for the insulin glargine group (n = 57) than for the rosiglitazone group (n = 47) (P = 0.0528). The calculated average rate per patient-year of a confirmed hypoglycemic event (<70 mg/dl), after adjusting for BMI, was 7.7 (95% CI 5.4-10.8) and 3.4 (2.3-5.0) for the insulin glargine and rosiglitazone groups, respectively (P = 0.0073). More patients in the insulin glargine group had confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia of <3.9 mmol/l (P = 0.02) and <2.8 mmol/l (P < 0.05) than in the rosiglitazone group. Effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels from baseline to end point with insulin glargine (-4.4, -1.4, and -19.0%, respectively) contrasted with those of rosiglitazone (+10.1, +13.1, and +4.6%, respectively; P < 0.002). HDL cholesterol was unchanged with insulin glargine but increased with rosiglitazone by 4.4% (P < 0.05). Insulin glargine had less weight gain than rosiglitazone (1.6 +/- 0.4 vs. 3.0 +/- 0.4 kg; P = 0.02), fewer adverse events (7 vs. 29%; P = 0.0001), and no peripheral edema (0 vs. 12.5%). Insulin glargine saved $235/patient over 24 weeks compared with rosiglitazone. Low-dose insulin glargine combined with a sulfonylurea and metformin resulted in similar A1C improvements except for greater reductions in A1C when baseline was > or =9.5% compared with add-on maximum-dose rosiglitazone. Further, insulin glargine was associated with more hypoglycemia but less weight gain, no edema, and salutary lipid changes at a lower cost of therapy.Diabetes Care 04/2006; 29(3):554-9. · 8.09 Impact Factor -
Article: Insulin glulisine: viewpoints.
Drugs 02/2006; 66(6):870-2. · 4.23 Impact Factor -
Article: Insulin secretagogues: who, what, when, and how?
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sulfonylurea compounds were the first available oral antidiabetic agents and they remain an important tool in our quest for optimal glycemic control. The more recent introduction of meglitinides offers an approach to short-term insulin release with minimal hypoglycemic risk during fasting periods. Published trials suggest that individuals with a hemoglobin A(1c) above 8.5% are unlikely to reach currently recommended targets (6.5% to 7%) without the use of one of these insulin secretagogues. Starting and probable maximally effective doses for glimepiride are 1 to 2 mg initially and 4 mg thereafter. For glyburide and glipizide, these are 2.5 to 5 mg initially, and 10 mg effective at a maximum. The large majority of the effect can be seen within a week, making them very attractive when rapid lowering of glucose is needed. An understanding of the principles will facilitate more effective use of initial and combination therapy.Current Diabetes Reports 11/2005; 5(5):329-32. · 2.50 Impact Factor -
Article: Reduced hypoglycemia risk with insulin glargine: a meta-analysis comparing insulin glargine with human NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Insulin glargine (LANTUS) is a once-daily basal insulin analog with a smooth 24-h time-action profile that provides effective glycemic control with reduced hypoglycemia risk (particularly nocturnal) compared with NPH insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. A recent "treat-to-target" study has shown that more patients on insulin glargine reached HbA(1c) levels < or =7.0% without confirmed nocturnal hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin. We further assessed the risk for hypoglycemia in a meta-analysis of controlled trials of a similar design for insulin glargine versus once- or twice-daily NPH insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes. All studies were 24-28 weeks long, except one 52-week study, for which interim 20-week data were used. Patient demographics were similar between the insulin glargine (n = 1,142) and NPH insulin (n = 1,162) groups. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA(1c) (< or =7.0%) was similar between insulin glargine-and NPH insulin-treated patients (30.8 and 32.1%, respectively). There was a consistent significant reduction of hypoglycemia risk associated with insulin glargine, compared with NPH insulin, in terms of overall symptomatic (11%; P = 0.0006) and nocturnal (26%; P < 0.0001) hypoglycemia. Most notably, the risk of severe hypoglycemia and severe nocturnal hypoglycemia were reduced with insulin glargine by 46% (P = 0.0442) and 59% (P = 0.0231), respectively. These results confirmed that insulin glargine given once daily reduces the risk of hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin, which can facilitate more aggressive insulin treatment to a HbA(1c) target of < or =7.0% in patients with type 2 diabetes.Diabetes Care 04/2005; 28(4):950-5. · 8.09 Impact Factor -
Article: Fine-tuning therapy with basal insulin for optimal glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a review.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To review results from clinical studies utilizing basal insulin therapy and discuss the impact of intensive glycemic control using forced-titration algorithms to fine-tune insulin dosing in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A Medline and PubMed search was undertaken for the years 1991-2004 using the following search terms: insulin, diabetes therapy, forced titration, glycemic control, and intensive insulin therapy. The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study demonstrated that the great majority of patients with type 2 diabetes will eventually require insulin and have provided level IA evidence that intensive glycemic control improves patient outcomes. Several recently published studies in patients with type 2 diabetes showed that forced titration of basal insulin shows promise in reaching glycemic goals. Forced-titration algorithms employ a structured approach in helping patients achieve glycemic targets: doses are adjusted until glycemic goals (predefined glycosylated hemoglobin concentrations and/or blood glucose levels) are met. Studies have indicated that forced-titration regimens using insulin analogs to attain aggressive glycemic targets have the potential to improve outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes without compromising patient safety. These forced-titration algorithms are straightforward and designed to be adaptable to individual needs, which may help overcome barriers to insulinization of patients with type 2 diabetes.Current Medical Research and Opinion 01/2005; 20(12):2007-14. · 2.38 Impact Factor -
Article: Insulin glulisine provides improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Insulin glulisine is a novel analog of human insulin designed for use as a rapid-acting insulin. This study compared the safety and efficacy of glulisine with regular human insulin (RHI) in combination with NPH insulin. In total, 876 relatively well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes (mean HbA1c 7.55%) were randomized and treated with glulisine/NPH (n = 435) or RHI/NPH (n = 441) for up to 26 weeks in this randomized, multicenter, multinational, open-label, parallel-group study. Subjects were allowed to continue the same dose of prestudy regimens of oral antidiabetic agent (OAD) therapy (unless hypoglycemia necessitated a dose change). A slightly greater reduction from baseline to end point of HbA1c was seen in the glulisine group versus RHI (-0.46 vs. -0.30% with RHI; P = 0.0029). Also, at end point, lower postbreakfast (156 vs. 162 mg/dl [8.66 vs. 9.02 mmol/l]; P < 0.05) and postdinner (154 vs. 163 mg/dl [8.54 vs. 9.05 mmol/l]; P < 0.05) blood glucose levels were noted. Symptomatic hypoglycemia (overall, nocturnal, and severe) and weight gain were comparable between the two treatment groups. There were no between-group differences in baseline-to-end point changes in insulin dose. Twice-daily glulisine associated with NPH can provide small improvements in glycemic control compared with RHI in patients with type 2 diabetes who are already relatively well controlled on insulin alone or insulin plus OADs. The clinical relevance of such a difference remains to be established.Diabetes Care 10/2004; 27(10):2363-8. · 8.09 Impact Factor -
Article: New strategies for basal insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The clinical progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is well understood. Glycemic control gradually deteriorates, and progression of DM eventually leads to an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications. Reassessment of current insulin treatment strategies leading to restoration of glycemic control is essential to prevent or stop the progression of type 2 DM and its complications. The purpose of this article was to review the importance of instituting a strategy of basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 DM. Relevant articles were obtained through an online search of PubMed and MEDLINE for literature published from 1990 to 2003. The search terms used were insulin therapy, combination oral therapy, treatment failure, glycemic control, insulin analogues, insulin glargine, basal insulin, and microvascular complications. Large-scale intervention trials, such as the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), have reported that patients with type 2 DM treated with oral combination therapy are unable to maintain glycemic control. These observations have led to a reassessment of the role of insulin therapy in type 2 DM. The importance of tight glycemic control through the aggressive use of insulin early in the course of the disease is apparent from the UKPDS, Diabetes Control and Complications Trial, and other, smaller studies. Considerable evidence indicates that initiating a basal insulin-replacement strategy with an existing oral regimen can result in regaining glycemic control. Evidence emerging from recent studies indicates that use of intensive insulin therapy early in the course of the disease may have a positive clinical impact on outcome and slow the progression of complications. The availability of basal insulin analogues has expanded treatment options and improved the efficacy of therapeutic regimens for type 2 DM. The available data suggest using an earlier transition from monotherapy to combination therapy to minimize disease-associated morbidity. The availability of new insulin analogues has expanded therapeutic options and offers the potential to enhance the efficacy of therapeutic regimens for type 2 DM as well as improve the ease and safety of treatment when glycosylated hemoglobin cannot be maintained <7% on > or =1 oral antidiabetic agent.Clinical Therapeutics 07/2004; 26(6):889-901. · 2.32 Impact Factor -
Article: Advances in diabetes for the millennium: understanding insulin resistance.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes is a heterogeneous disorder in which both insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion play important roles. Studies in monozygotic twins in which one is discordant for type 2 diabetes and studies of first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes who still have normal glucose tolerance indicate that impaired insulin secretion can be detected before insulin resistance, suggesting that impaired beta-cell function may be the primary genetic defect. The insulin resistance found in most individuals with impaired glucose tolerance and/or type 2 diabetes appears to be largely acquired and can be accounted for by obesity, physical inactivity, and glucose and lipotoxicity. Progressive deterioration in beta-cell function as demonstrated in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and/or worsening of insulin resistance leads to deterioration in glucose tolerance and to secondary failure of oral antidiabetic drugs. Therefore, agents that improve beta-cell function (such as sulfonylureas and meglitinides) and insulin sensitizers (such as metformin and thiazolidinediones) both are useful alone or in combination for treating type 2 diabetes.MedGenMed: Medscape general medicine 02/2004; 6(3 Suppl):11.
Top co-authors
Top Journals
Institutions
-
2004
-
University of Rochester
- Clinical Research Center (CRC)
Rochester, NY, USA
-
