Improving glucose management: ten steps to get more patients with type 2 diabetes to glycaemic goal

Type 2 diabetes after gastric bypass: remission in five models using HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, and medication status

BACKGROUND

The remission rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) vary according to the glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FG), and medication status. Our objectives were to describe remission using the American Diabetes Association standards for defining normoglycemia and to identify the factors related to the preoperative severity of T2DM that predict remission to normoglycemia, independent of weight loss, after RYGB. The setting was an urban not-for-profit community hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort of 2275 patients who qualified for bariatric surgery (2001-2008). Five different models for defining remission (no diabetes medication and a FG <100 mg/dL; no diabetes medication and HbA1c <6.0; no diabetes medication and HbA1c <5.7%; no diabetes medication, FG <100 mg/dL, and HbA1c <6.0%; and no diabetes medication, FG <100 mg/dL, and HbA1c <5.7%) were compared in 505 obese patients with T2DM 14 months after RYGB. The secondary aims were to determine the effects of preoperative insulin therapy and the duration of known T2DM on remission.

RESULTS

Of the 505 patients, 43.2% achieved remission using the most stringent criteria (no diabetes medication, HbA1c <5.7%, and FG <100 mg/dL) compared with 59.4% using the most liberal definition (no diabetes medication and FG <100 mg/dL; P < .001). The remission rates were greater for patients not taking insulin preoperatively (53.8% versus 13.5%, P < .001) and for patients with a more recent preoperative T2DM diagnosis (8.9 versus 3.7 yr, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Remission, defined at a threshold less than what would be expected to result in microvascular damage, was achieved in 43.2% of diabetic patients by 14 months after RYGB. A more recent diagnosis of T2DM and the absence of preoperative insulin therapy were significant predictors, regardless of how remission was defined, independent of the percentage of excess weight loss.

Pharmacological approaches to the management of type 2 diabetes in fasting adults during Ramadan

More than 50 million Muslims throughout the world with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fast for one lunar month (Ramadan) each year. Health care providers within and outside the Muslim world need to be aware of the nature of these partial days of fasting and their risks (and potential benefits) to people with T2DM, and need to provide Ramadan-adjusted diabetes care. Hypoglycemia during the fasting days represents the greatest health risk for these patients; hence, diabetes-related pharmacotherapy needs to be tailored and adjusted with this risk in mind. With limited trial data available, this review proposes practical modifications to the usual pre-Ramadan antidiabetic regimens that are based on pathophysiological principles, clinical trial evidence (where available), expert opinion, and extended practical experience. Individualization of care is paramount in this regard to take into consideration the patient and societal, cultural, and economic variables.

How can insulin initiation delivery in a dual-sector health system be optimised? A qualitative study on healthcare professionals' views

Background

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increasing at an alarming rate in developing countries. However, glycaemia control remains suboptimal and insulin use is low. One important barrier is the lack of an efficient and effective insulin initiation delivery approach. This study aimed to document the strategies used and proposed by healthcare professionals to improve insulin initiation in the Malaysian dual-sector (public–private) health system.

Methods

In depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in Klang Valley and Seremban, Malaysia in 2010–11. Healthcare professionals consisting of general practitioners (n = 11), medical officers (n = 8), diabetes educators (n = 3), government policy makers (n = 4), family medicine specialists (n = 10) and endocrinologists (n = 2) were interviewed. We used a topic guide to facilitate the interviews, which were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.

Results

Three main themes emerged from the interviews. Firstly, there was a lack of collaboration between the private and public sectors in diabetes care. The general practitioners in the private sector proposed an integrated system for them to refer patients to the public health services for insulin initiation programmes. There could be shared care between the two sectors and this would reduce the disproportionately heavy workload at the public sector. Secondly, besides the support from the government health authority, the healthcare professionals wanted greater involvement of non-government organisations, media and pharmaceutical industry in facilitating insulin initiation in both the public and private sectors. The support included: training of healthcare professionals; developing and disseminating patient education materials; service provision by diabetes education teams; organising programmes for patients’ peer group sessions; increasing awareness and demystifying insulin via public campaigns; and subsidising glucose monitoring equipment. Finally, the healthcare professionals proposed the establishment of multidisciplinary teams as a strategy to increase the rate of insulin initiation. Having team members from different ethnic backgrounds would help to overcome language and cultural differences when communicating with patients.

Conclusion

The challenges faced by a dual-sector health system in delivering insulin initiation may be addressed by greater collaborations between the private and public sectors and governmental and non-government organisations, and among different healthcare professionals.

The management of Type 2 diabetes: a survey of Australian general practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To explore how clinical and demographic variables impact on the management of diabetes mellitus in general practice.

DESIGN

A structured vignette survey was conducted in Australia. This included nine vignettes chosen at random from 128 developed around seven clinical variables. Respondents were asked to recommend a change in treatment and make specific recommendations. A random sample of general practitioners (GPs) were recruited. Two diabetologists involved in the development of national guidelines also participated.

RESULTS

125 (13.8%) GPs participated. Statistical analyses were used to generate outcome measures. GPs recommended a change in treatment for most (81.1%) cases; were less likely to prescribe a statin (68.5% GPs vs. 76.3% diabetologists), less likely to treat hypertension (66.7% vs.89%) and less likely to refer for lifestyle modification (82.3% vs. 96.5%). Significant disagreement occurred around prescribing or changing oral hypoglycaemics. No GP characteristics showed significant impact. The proportion of GPs who agreed with diabetiologists on dose and choice of drugs was 35.7% for statins, 49.6% for antihypertensives and 39.6% for oral hypoglycaemics.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant differences between diabetologists and GPs on the management of diabetes. The survey suggests significant under-dosing by GPs. These findings warrant further investigation.

Evolving treatment strategies for the management of type 2 diabetes

It is well known that improved metabolic control significantly reduces both micro- and macrovascular complications in diabetes. As it relates to specific treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, clinicians have traditionally initiated lifestyle intervention and progressed therapy using various drug treatments first as monotherapy and then as combination therapy throughout the course of the disease. This "stepwise" strategy has not always achieved the desired outcome of normal glycemic control; consequently, several clinical problems, such as hypoglycemia, weight gain and postprandial hyperglycemia, persist. However, new therapies that improve glycemic control and have favorable effects to address the unmet clinical problems have recently been developed or are still in development. These therapies include 2 classes of incretin-directed therapy, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, which help restore physiologic levels and activity of the incretin glucagon-like peptide-1. Also in development are additional therapies that have effects on the kidney to promote glucose excretion. These therapies are proposed to treat the key metabolic abnormalities associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus and minimize the side effects noted with conventional therapies.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and preservation of pancreatic islet-cell function: a critical appraisal of the evidence

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) develops as a consequence of progressive β-cell dysfunction in the presence of insulin resistance. None of the currently-available T2DM therapies is able to change the course of the disease by halting the relentless decline in pancreatic islet cell function. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, or incretin enhancers, have been introduced in the treatment of T2DM. This class of glucose-lowering agents enhances endogenous glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) levels by blocking the incretin-degrading enzyme DPP-4. DPP-4 inhibitors may restore the deranged islet-cell balance in T2DM, by stimulating meal-related insulin secretion and by decreasing postprandial glucagon levels. Moreover, in rodent studies, DPP-4 inhibitors demonstrated beneficial effects on (functional) β-cell mass and pancreatic insulin content. Studies in humans with T2DM have indicated improvement of islet-cell function, both in the fasted state and under postprandial conditions and these beneficial effects were sustained in studies with a duration up to 2 years. However, there is at present no evidence in humans to suggest that DPP-4 inhibitors have durable effects on β-cell function after cessation of therapy. Long-term, large-sized trials using an active blood glucose lowering comparator followed by a sufficiently long washout period after discontinuation of the study drug are needed to assess whether DPP-4 inhibitors may durably preserve pancreatic islet-cell function in patients with T2DM.

Physicians' perceptions of the type 2 diabetes multi-disciplinary treatment team: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore physicians' perceptions of the multidisciplinary type 2 diabetes treatment team.

METHODS

Nineteen physicians (74% endocrinologists; 26% primary care) participated in semistructured interviews. Audiorecorded data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis and NVivo 8 software.

RESULTS

Physicians considered the multidisciplinary team, including a physician and diabetes educator, as very important to diabetes treatment. Participants described how diabetes, with its many comorbidities and challenging lifestyle recommendations, is difficult for any single physician to treat. They further described how the team's diverse staff offers complementary skills and more contact time for assessment and treatment of patients, developing treatment relationships, and supporting patients in learning diabetes self-care. Physicians stressed the necessity of regular and ongoing communication among team members to ensure patients receive consistent information, and some reported that institutional factors interfere with intra-team communication. They also expressed concerns about the team approach in relation to individualized treatment and patients' reluctance to see multiple providers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights physicians' positive perceptions of and concerns about the type 2 diabetes multidisciplinary team. Further study of diabetes educators' and patients' perceptions of the team approach is needed.

Update on diagnosis, pathogenesis and management of ketosis-prone Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) has been considered a key clinical feature of Type 1 diabetes mellitus; however, increasing evidence indicates that DKA is also a common feature of Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Many cases of DKA develop under stressful conditions such as trauma or infection but an increasing number of cases without precipitating cause have been reported in children and adults with T2DM. Such patients present with severe hyperglycemia and ketosis as in Type 1 diabetes mellitus but can discontinue insulin after a few months and maintain acceptable glycemic control on diet or oral agents. This subtype of diabetes has been referred to as ketosis-prone T2DM. In this article, we reviewed the literature on ketosis-prone T2DM and summarized the epidemiology, putative pathophysiology and approaches to management.

[Improvement of control in subjects with type 2 diabetes after a joint intervention: diabetes education and physical activity]

OBJECTIVE

To study the improvement of metabolic control and cardiovascular risk factors, adherence, self-monitoring, self-care, attitudes and motivation in subjects with Type 2 Diabetes (DM2) in a specific Health Care Area after group intervention through the community: diabetes education (DE) and physical exercise (PE).

DESIGN

A single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTERVENTION

group 1: DE; group 2: ED and PE; group 3: only PE, and "control" group-4: Individual consultations.

LOCATION

Urban health centre/municipal sports centre.

PARTICIPANTS

108 DM2, age: 40-70, glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1)c) ≤ 8.5%, blood pressure (BP)<160/90 and body mass index (BMI)<45, excluding those with chronic complications and/or acute decompensation.

INTERVENTIONS

During 6 months, 8 workshops were held for group education and monitored aerobic physical exercise of moderate intensity (3 hours a week).

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Primary variable pre- and post- intervention: reduction in HbA(1)c; other variables: examination and analytical data, therapeutic compliance, self-monitoring, self-care, attitudes and motivation (DAS-3SP survey).

RESULTS

After intervention, more diabetics had a lower HbA(1)c following a full intervention: "DE" and "PE", RR: 1.93 (0.85-4.40) and exercise, RR: 1.56 (0.65-3.76). With simultaneous DE and PE, the BMI, RR: 1.61 (0.85-3.03) and LDL cholesterol, RR: 1.82 (0.99-3.36), of many subjects decreased. Dietary compliance, RR: 1.29 (0.32-5.22) and exercise, RR: 1.93 (0.76-4.91) also increased, more patients performing their own checks, RR: 3.86 (0.90-16.55) and improving motivation/attitudes in "strict control management", RR: 1.48 (0.94-2.34). With PE, systolic and diastolic BP decreased in more patients RR: 1.35 (0.72-2.52), 1.87 (0.72-4.84) while in the DE group only diastolic values decreased 1.80 (0.69-4.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient conditions improve more with the combination of DE and PE, though the results are not statistically significant, probably due to insufficient sample size.

Glycemic control and weight reduction without causing hypoglycemia: the case for continued safe aggressive care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and avoidance of therapeutic inertia

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major and growing concern in the United States, in large part because of an epidemic of obesity in America and its relation to type 2 DM. In affected patients, postprandial glucose may be an early indicator of glucose intolerance or a prediabetes condition, which may be a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than impaired fasting glucose level. Treating patients who have early signs of hyperglycemia, including elevated postprandial glucose level, with intensive glucose control that does not lead to weight gain, and ideally may be associated with weight reduction, may be vital to preventing or reducing later cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Because hypoglycemia is an important complication of current DM treatments and may cause acute secondary adverse cardiovascular outcomes, not causing hypoglycemia is mandatory. Given that weight loss can significantly lower cardiovascular risk and improve other cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 DM and that medications are available that can result in weight reduction without leading to hypoglycemia, the successful treatment of patients with type 2 DM should be individualized and should address the complete pathophysiologic process. This review is a hypothesis article that presents arguments against general approaches to the treatment of type 2 DM. An algorithm is presented in which the goal for managing patients with type 2 DM is to lower the blood glucose level as much as possible for as long as possible without causing hypoglycemia. In addition, body weight should ideally be improved, reducing cardiovascular risk factors and avoiding therapeutic inertia.

Dapagliflozin: a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor in development for type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing worldwide epidemic. Patients face lifelong therapy to control hyperglycemia and prevent the associated complications. There are many medications, with varying mechanisms, available for the treatment of T2DM, but almost all target the declining insulin sensitivity and secretion that are associated with disease progression. Medications with such insulin-dependent mechanisms of action often lose efficacy over time, and there is increasing interest in the development of new antidiabetes medications that are not dependent upon insulin. One such approach is through the inhibition of renal glucose reuptake. Dapagliflozin, the first of a class of selective sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, reduces renal glucose reabsorption and is currently under development for the treatment of T2DM. Here, we review the literature relating to the preclinical and clinical development of dapagliflozin.

Practical steps to improving the management of type 1 diabetes: recommendations from the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) led to considerable improvements in the management of type 1 diabetes, with the wider adoption of intensive insulin therapy to reduce the risk of complications. However, a large gap between evidence and practice remains, as recently shown by the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (EDC) study, in which 30-year rates of microvascular complications in the 'real world' EDC patients were twice that of DCCT patients who received intensive insulin therapy. This gap may be attributed to the many challenges that patients and practitioners face in the day-to-day management of the disease. These barriers include reaching glycaemic goals, overcoming the reality and fear of hypoglycaemia, and appropriate insulin therapy and dose adjustment. As practitioners, the question remains: how do we help patients with type 1 diabetes manage glycaemia while overcoming barriers? In this article, the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management provides practical recommendations to help improve the care of patients with type 1 diabetes.

Tailoring treatment to the individual in type 2 diabetes practical guidance from the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management

Good glycaemic control continues to be the most effective therapeutic manoeuvre to reduce the risk of development and/or progression of microvascular disease, and therefore remains the cornerstone of diabetes management despite recent scepticism about tight glucose control strategies. The impact on macrovascular complications is still a matter of debate, and so glycaemic control strategies should be placed in the context of multifactorial intervention to address all cardiovascular risk factors. Approaches to achieve glycaemic targets should always ensure patient safety, and results from recent landmark outcome studies support the need for appropriate individualisation of glycaemic targets and of the means to achieve these targets, with the ultimate aim to optimise outcomes and minimise adverse events, such as hypoglycaemia and marked weight gain. The primary goal of the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management is the provision of practical guidance to improve patient outcomes and, in this article, we aim to support healthcare professionals in appropriately tailoring type 2 diabetes treatment to the individual. Patient groups requiring special consideration are identified, including newly diagnosed individuals with type 2 diabetes but no complications, individuals with a history of inadequate glycaemic control, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, children and individuals at risk of hypoglycaemia. Practical guidance specific to each group is provided.

Postoperative hyperglycaemia of diabetic patients undergoing cardiac surgery - a clinical audit

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that hyperglycaemia is associated with postoperative complications in cardiac surgical patients. Conversely, well-controlled glucose levels are said to reduce major infectious complications in diabetic patients.

AIM/OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this clinical audit was to evaluate the blood glucose levels of diabetic patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to determine the effectiveness of postoperative glycaemic control.

METHODS

A group of 150 patients from a large Irish cardiac surgery centre was selected by convenience sampling. An audit tool was designed to capture the patients' blood glucose levels, treatment regimes and postoperative complications.

FINDINGS

The findings showed major variations between 'high', 'good' and 'borderline' blood glucose levels in the pre- and postoperative phase. Although blood glucose testing practices seemed inconsistent, mean levels measured 'borderline'. Furthermore, the treatment regimes varied greatly and suggest a lack of consensus regarding the management of postoperative hyperglycaemia. A total of 52% (n = 78) patients developed 114 complications with a level of 21.4% (n = 32) postoperative wound infections.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this audit highlight the importance of regular blood glucose testing to enable early detection of hyperglycaemia and timely initiation of appropriate treatments regimes for diabetic patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Findings also show that hyperglycaemia derangement may make a difference in the recovery phase. While patients will benefit from lesser wound infections, hospitals might save costs involved with treating postoperative complications.

RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE

More consistent blood glucose testing might be achieved through the use of evidence-based protocols. However, the education of staff is as important as it develops knowledge on the complex metabolic interactions of diabetic patients undergoing cardiac surgery. While this means investing in staff education and policy development, costs for daily care and expensive treatments for complications will be saved as patient recovery will be speedier and less eventful.

What are the practical implications for treating diabetes in light of recent evidence? Updated recommendations from the Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management

The Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management was established in 2004 to provide practical guidance to improving glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes. Those recommendations have been updated to take account of recent trials assessing the effects of intensive glucose control. We continue to emphasis the importance of early and sustained glycaemic control, aiming for HbA( 1c) 6.5-7% wherever safe and appropriate. Individualisation of targets and the management process is strongly encouraged to accommodate patient circumstances and to avoid hypoglycaemia. Prompt introduction of combinations of agents is suggested when monotherapy is inadequate.Treatments will preferably address the underlying pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and integrate within a wider programme of care which also aims to reduce modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and better equip patients in the self-management of their condition.

Megatrials in type 2 diabetes. From excitement to frustration?

Whether glycaemic control may result in a reduction of cardiovascular (CV) risk has been a matter of continuous discussion and investigation. Epidemiological analyses have extensively suggested a relationship between glycaemic control and CV events; however, the results of intervention trials have been less conclusive. The UKPDS reported a 16% reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction, but this reduction was not statistically significant. The results of the Kumamoto and PROactive studies could not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn either, because of limited size and the defined primary endpoint, respectively. The results of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) and Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trials and the Veteran Administration Diabetes Trial (VADT) were published in rapid succession over the second half of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009. A total number of almost 25,000 type 2 diabetic patients were recruited in these three trials, which assessed the effect of intensive glycaemic control vs conventional treatment on well-defined CV endpoints. In spite of the achievement and maintenance of strict glycaemic control (HbA(1c) <7.0%), no beneficial effect of intensive therapy was apparent in any of the studies. At the same time these results were presented, the results of an analysis of the 10 year follow-up of the UKPDS also became available and provided a more optimistic view of the potential benefit of achieving good glycaemic control. The relative risk reductions for myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality were significantly lower in the patients who initially received the intensive treatment compared with those in the conventional treatment arm. Moreover, the initial benefit in terms of microvascular complications observed at the end of the intervention trial remained unaltered at follow-up. Once again the debate on the importance of glycaemic control in preventing macrovascular complications remains unsettled. These results, however, require some reconciliation, and the objective of this commentary is to analyse a series of elements, including the changes in the treatment approach to CV risk factors in type 2 diabetes, the effect of glucose-lowering agents, and the characteristics of the patients included in the different trials, that should be taken into account when interpreting the results of intervention trials in type 2 diabetes.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of albiglutide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetic, in healthy subjects

AIMS

Albiglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) mimetic generated by genetic fusion of a dipeptidyl peptidase-IV-resistant GLP-1 dimer to human albumin. Albiglutide was designed to retain the therapeutic effects of native GLP-1 while extending its duration of action. This study was conducted to determine the pharmacokinetics and initial safety/tolerability profile of albiglutide in non-diabetic volunteers.

METHODS

In this single-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 39 subjects (18-60 years, body mass index 19.9-35.0 kg/m(2)) received placebo (n = 10) or escalating doses of albiglutide (n = 29) on days 1 and 8 in the following sequential cohorts: cohort 1: 0.25 + 1 mg; cohort 2: 3 + 6 mg; cohort 3: 16 + 24 mg; cohort 4: 48 + 60 mg; and cohort 5: 80 + 104 mg. Dose proportionality was evaluated based on area under the plasma drug concentration versus time curve [area under the curve (AUC((0-7 days)))] and maximum plasma drug concentration (C(max)) for cohorts 2-5 during week 1.

RESULTS

Albiglutide had a terminal elimination half-life (T(1/2)) of 6-8 days and time to maximum observed plasma drug concentration (T(max)) of 3-4 days. A greater-than-dose proportional increase in albiglutide exposure was observed. Albiglutide demonstrated a dose-dependent trend in reductions of glucose weighted mean AUC and fructosamine levels in healthy subjects. The incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) was similar between placebo and albiglutide groups. Headache was the most frequent drug-related AE, followed by constipation, flatulence and nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

Albiglutide has a half-life that favours once weekly or less frequent dosing with an acceptable safety/tolerability profile in non-diabetic subjects.

Drug evaluation: vildagliptin-metformin single-tablet combination

The single-tablet combination of vildagliptin and metformin addresses key defects of type 2 diabetes for improved glycemic control. By inhibiting the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) enzyme, vildagliptin raises the levels of the active incretin hormones, glucagon-like peptide 1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide. This leads to increased synthesis and release of insulin from the pancreatic beta cells and decreased release of glucagon from the pancreatic alpha cells. The combination tablet also contains metformin, which addresses insulin resistance. The complementary mechanisms of action of the two agents in combination have been shown to provide additive and sustained reductions in hemoglobin A(1c) compared with metformin monotherapy. In active-controlled trials, the vildagliptin-metformin combination has been shown to produce equivalent reductions in hemoglobin A(1c) to pioglitazone-metformin and glimepiride-metformin combinations, without significant risk of hypoglycemia and without causing weight gain. In clinical trials, the overall incidence of any adverse event was similar in patients randomized to vildagliptin plus metformin and placebo plus metformin. Available data support the use of vildagliptin in combination with metformin as a promising second-line treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes and this is reflected in the latest UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence draft guideline for consultation on new agents for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of albiglutide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetic, in patients with type 2 diabetes

CONTEXT

Native glucagon-like peptide-1 increases insulin secretion, decreases glucagon secretion, and reduces appetite but is rapidly inactivated by dipeptidyl peptidase-4. Albiglutide is a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4-resistant glucagon-like peptide-1 dimer fused to human albumin designed to have sustained efficacy in vivo.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to investigate pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes subjects.

METHODS

In a single-blind dose-escalation study, 54 subjects were randomized to receive placebo or 9-, 16-, or 32-mg albiglutide on d 1 and 8. In a complementary study, 46 subjects were randomized to a single dose (16 or 64 mg) of albiglutide to the arm, leg, or abdomen.

RESULTS

Significant dose-dependent reductions in 24-h mean weighted glucose [area under the curve((0-24 h))] were observed, with placebo-adjusted least squares means difference values in the 32-mg cohort of -34.8 and -56.4 mg/dl [95% confidence interval (-54.1, -15.5) and (-82.2, -30.5)] for d 2 and 9, respectively. Placebo-adjusted fasting plasma glucose decreased by -26.7 and -50.7 mg/dl [95% confidence interval (-46.3, -7.06) and (-75.4, -26.0)] on d 2 and 9, respectively. Postprandial glucose was also reduced. No hypoglycemic episodes were detected in the albiglutide cohorts. The frequency and severity of the most common adverse events, headache and nausea, were comparable with placebo controls. Albiglutide half-life ranged between 6 and 7 d. The pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamic of albiglutide was unaffected by injection site.

CONCLUSIONS

Albiglutide improved fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose with a favorable safety profile in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Albiglutide's long half-life may allow for once-weekly or less frequent dosing.

Potential benefits of early addition of rosiglitazone in combination with glimepiride in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

AIM

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of early combination therapy with rosiglitazone (RSG) and glimepiride (GLIM) vs. GLIM monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Strategies for the addition of RSG in combination with GLIM were evaluated with data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled studies. Study A - addition of RSG (4 or 8 mg) or PBO to continued GLIM 3 mg once daily; study B - addition of low-dose RSG (4 mg) prior to uptitration of GLIM (from 2 to 4 mg) vs. continued uptitration of GLIM (from 2 to 8 mg).

RESULTS

Study A reported significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 26 with the addition of both 4 and 8 mg RSG to GLIM 3 mg [-21 mg/dl (-1.2 mmol/l), p = 0.0019 and -43 mg/dl (-2.4 mmol/l), p < 0.0001, respectively] and in haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) (-0.63%, p = 0.00015 and -1.17%, p < 0.0001, respectively) from a baseline of 8.2 and 8.1%, respectively. At the end of the study, target HbA(1c) <7.0% was achieved in 43 and 68% of patients in the RSG 4 mg + GLIM and RSG 8 mg + GLIM groups, respectively, compared with 32% in the PBO + GLIM (GLIM alone) group. In study B, addition of RSG to GLIM reduced mean FPG and HbA(1c) levels at week 24 from baseline [-28 mg/dl (-1.5 mmol/l), p < 0.0001, and -0.68%, p < 0.0001, respectively]. There were no significant changes with GLIM monotherapy in either study. Favourable effects of RSG + GLIM on insulin sensitivity, beta-cell function and cardiovascular disease biomarkers were also observed. All treatments were similarly well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Early addition of RSG to GLIM is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option to improve glycaemic control in sulphonylurea-treated patients with T2DM.

Early diagnosis and prevention of diabetes in developing countries

Type 2 diabetes has an insidious onset with a long latent period of dysglycaemia. By the time the diagnosis of diabetes is made, diabetes-related tissue damage occurs in nearly half of the patients. Even after diagnosis, the glycaemic control is suboptimal in more than 50%, leading to the vascular complications. Evidences suggest that early detection of diabetes by appropriate screening methods, especially in subjects with high risk for diabetes will help to prevent or delay the vascular complications and thus reduce the clinical, social and economic burden of the disease. There are also evidences to show that intervention at the prediabetic stage is superior to diagnosis of diabetes.

Initial treatment with fixed-dose combination rosiglitazone/glimepiride in patients with previously untreated type 2 diabetes

AIM

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of two different dosing regimens of fixed-dose combination (FDC) rosiglitazone (RSG) plus glimepiride (GLIM) compared with RSG or GLIM monotherapy in drug-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Drug-naive subjects (n = 901) were enrolled into this 28-week, double-blind, parallel-group study if their glycosylated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) was >7.5% but <or=12%. Subjects were randomized to receive either GLIM [4 mg once daily (OD) maximal], RSG (8 mg OD maximal) or RSG/GLIM FDC regimen A (4 mg/4 mg OD maximal) or RSG/GLIM FDC regimen B (8 mg/4 mg OD maximal). Patients were assessed for efficacy and safety every 4 weeks for the first 12 weeks of the study, and at weeks 20 and 28. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA(1c) from baseline. Key secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving recommended HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) targets; change from baseline in FPG, insulin, C-reactive protein (CRP), adiponectin, free fatty acids and lipids; and percentage change in homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function. Safety evaluations included adverse-event (AE) monitoring and clinical laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

At week 28, both RSG/GLIM FDC regimens significantly reduced HbA(1c) (mean +/- s.d.: -2.4 +/- 1.4% FDC regimen A; -2.5 +/- 1.4% FDC regimen B) to a greater extent than RSG (-1.8 +/- 1.5%) or GLIM (-1.7 +/- 1.4%) monotherapy (model-adjusted mean treatment difference, p < 0.0001 vs. both RSG and GLIM). Significantly more subjects achieved HbA(1c) target levels of <or=6.5 and <7% with either RSG/GLIM FDC regimen compared with RSG or GLIM alone (model-adjusted odds ratio, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Similarly, a significantly greater reduction in FPG levels was observed in subjects treated with the RSG/GLIM FDC [mean +/- s.d. (mg/dl): -69.5 +/- 57.5 FDC regimen A; -79.9 +/- 56.8 FDC regimen B) compared with RSG (-56.6 +/- 58.1) or GLIM (-42.2 +/- 66.1) monotherapy (model-adjusted mean treatment difference, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Improvement in CRP was also observed in subjects who were treated with a RSG/GLIM FDC or RSG monotherapy compared with GLIM monotherapy. RSG/GLIM FDC was generally well tolerated, with no new safety or tolerability issues identified from its monotherapy components, and a similar AE profile was observed across FDC regimens. The most commonly reported AE was hypoglycaemia, and the incidence of confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia (3.6-5.5%) was comparable among subjects treated with an RSG/GLIM FDC and GLIM monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with RSG or GLIM monotherapy, the RSG/GLIM FDC improved glycaemic control with no significant increased risk of hypoglycaemia. RSG/GLIM FDC provides an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for drug-naive individuals with T2DM.

The effect of the availability of inhaled insulin on glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes failing on oral therapy: the evaluation of Exubera as a therapeutic option on insulin initiation and improvement in glycaemic control in clinical practice (EXPERIENCE) trial

AIM

To examine the impact of inhaled human insulin (Exubera, EXU) on patient or physician willingness to adopt insulin after oral glucose-lowering agent failure.

METHODS

During a randomized controlled trial in primary, secondary and tertiary care in Europe and North America, 739 patients using >or= 2 oral glucose-lowering agents with glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) >or= 8.0% were assigned to two treatment groups: Group 1 (standard care with the option of EXU) or Group 2 (standard care only). Standard care included adjusting oral therapy (optimizing current regimen or adding/omitting agents) and/or initiating subcutaneous (s.c.) insulin. The primary endpoint was difference in HbA(1c) between randomized groups at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes included differences in the rate of uptake of insulin therapy, proportion achieving satisfactory glycaemic control, treatment satisfaction and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

At baseline, insulin was initiated by more [odds ratio 6.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2 to 8.8; P < 0.0001] patients in Group 1 (86.2%; 76.7% EXU plus 9.5% s.c.) than Group 2 (50.7%; s.c. insulin only). At 26 weeks, mean (sd) changes in HbA(1c) from baseline were -2.0% (1.2%) and -1.7% (1.3%) in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, a difference of -0.2% (95% CI: -0.1% to -0.4%; P = 0.004). In Group 1, 45% of patients achieved an HbA(1c)<or= 7.0% by 26 weeks compared with 39% in Group 2 (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The availability of EXU may increase initiation of insulin, thereby contributing to improved overall glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on two or more oral glucose-lowering agents.

Progress in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: new pharmacologic approaches to improve glycemic control

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality that places a substantial economic and health burden on the public. Successful management of T2DM requires strict control of glycemia as well as other risk factors to prevent disease progression. Despite the availability of multiple classes of oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin, the majority of patients fail to attain or maintain tight glycemic control over time, raising their risk of serious microvascular and macrovascular complications.

SCOPE

This review briefly outlines current standards of diabetes treatment and explores several new and investigational approaches. It is based on MEDLINE literature searches (1966-August 2006) and on abstracts from the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions (2002-2006) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes Annual Meetings (1998-2006). Articles concerning basic science, preclinical, and clinical trial results were selected for this review based on their originality and relevance.

FINDINGS

Medical professional societies and other specialist groups have proposed a series of practical steps to enable more patients with T2DM to reach treatment goals. Among their most important recommendations is a call for new drugs to stabilize or reverse the progressive pancreatic islet-cell dysfunction that characterizes the disease. New modalities, such as incretin mimetics and DPP-4 inhibitors, are now emerging from clinical development and will provide patients with more treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears likely that early and aggressive treatment with multiple drug combinations will become more common in the management of T2DM. The new treatment modalities discussed here offer hope for improved outcomes and for meeting the considerable public health challenges posed by this complex condition. However, long-term studies are needed to determine durability of treatment effects, as well as the ultimate role of these new agents in the management of patients with T2DM.

Therapy conversion to insulin detemir among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents: a modeling study of cost-effectiveness in the United States

The aim of this study was to gain a preliminary indication of the long-term clinical and economic implications of converting treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes to insulin detemir+/-oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) in a routine clinical practice setting in the United States. With the use of outcome data and patient characteristics reported from an ongoing prospective observational trial, a validated computer simulation model of diabetes was used to project the clinical and cost outcomes associated with therapy conversion to insulin detemir over a 35-y period from (1) OHA only, (2) neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin (NPH)+/-OHA, and (3) insulin glargine+/-OHA. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a third-party healthcare payer perspective for the year 2005. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3%. Treatment with insulin detemir+/-OHA was associated with increases in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.309, 0.350, and 0.333 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus treatment with OHA alone, NPH+/-OHA, and insulin glargine+/-OHA, respectively. Increases in pharmacy costs were partially offset by reduced complications, rticularly renal complications and neuropathy. Projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were well within the range considered to represent good value in the United States, at $7412, $6269, and $3951 per QALY gained for treatment with Idet+/-OHA versus OHA alone, NPH+/-OHA, and Iglarg+/-OHA, respectively. On the basis of preliminary evidence of short-term improvements in glycemic control and reduced hypoglycemia, therapy conversion to insulin detemir+/-OHA from OHA alone, NPH+/-OHA, or insulin glargine+/-OHA was projected to increase quality-adjusted life expectancy and to represent a cost-effective treatment option in the United States.

New global recommendations: a multidisciplinary approach to improving outcomes in diabetes

Up to two-thirds of people with type-2 diabetes do not achieve glycaemic targets, increasing their risk of serious complications. New global recommendations from The Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management offer practical, simple advice for the diabetes management team to help individuals reach glycaemic goals. The recommendations focus on four areas: achieving optimal glycaemic control, targeting the underlying pathophysiology of the disease, treating earlier and intensively with combination therapy, and adopting a holistic approach. This article reviews the new recommendations and suggests that they offer a route to achieving guideline-based targets and improving outcomes in the real-life healthcare setting.

Improvement in glycaemic control with rosiglitazone/metformin fixed-dose combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes with very poor glycaemic control

OBJECTIVE

Traditional first-line intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes and very poor glycaemic control is insulin therapy or high doses of sulfonylureas if there is no evidence of volume depletion. This study explored the safety and efficacy of open-label treatment with rosiglitazone and metformin (RSG/MET) fixed-dose combination therapy (AVANDAMET) in patients with type 2 diabetes with very poor glycaemic control, to better characterize the magnitude of glycated haemoglobin (A1c) reduction after 24 weeks of therapy.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label trial, 190 patients with an A1c greater than 11% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) greater than 15 mmol/l were included after failing to meet glycaemic entry criteria for a primary double-blind, controlled, randomized study. Unless tolerability issues arose, eligible patients initiated RSG/MET 4 mg/1000 mg fixed-dose combination therapy and were up-titrated in increments of 2 mg/500 mg at 4-week intervals to a daily dose of 8 mg/2000 mg or the maximum tolerated dose. Patients were assessed for efficacy and safety at five visits over a 24-week period. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in A1c at week 24. Secondary efficacy end points included the proportion of patients achieving defined A1c targets, change from baseline to week 24 in FPG and insulin sensitivity.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (78%) completed 24 weeks of open-label treatment. At week 24, clinically significant mean reduction in A1c from 11.8 to 7.8% (mean reduction, 4.0 +/- 2.2%; p < 0.0001) and mean FPG reduction from 16.9 to 9.2 mmol/l (mean reduction, 7.7 +/- 4.4 mmol/l; p < 0.0001) were observed. A clinically significant reduction in FPG (5.2 mmol/l) was observed after 4 weeks of treatment with RSG/MET fixed-dose combination therapy. Despite a high mean baseline A1c of 11.8%, 33% of patients achieved treatment goal of A1c less than or equal to 6.5% at week 24, and 44% achieved an A1c less than 7% at week 24. RSG/MET fixed-dose combination was well tolerated, with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia (2%) and mean increase in weight from baseline of 2.6 +/- 5.2 kg, and few patients withdrew (2.6%) because of an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

RSG/MET fixed-dose combination therapy was effective as initial therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and very high levels of A1c and/or FPG, as demonstrated by robust and relatively rapid improvements in glycaemic control. RSG/MET fixed-dose combination was well tolerated as first-line therapy with no new tolerability issues identified.

Initial treatment with rosiglitazone/metformin fixed-dose combination therapy compared with monotherapy with either rosiglitazone or metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

AIM

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone and metformin (RSG/MET) fixed-dose combination (AVANDAMET) as initial therapy in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes compared with monotherapy with either RSG or MET after 32 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

A total of 468 drug-naive patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes were recruited for this multicentre, double-blind trial if their glycated haemoglobin (A1c) was greater than 7.5%, but less than or equal to 11%, and their fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was less than or equal to 15 mmol/l. Patients were randomized to 32 weeks of blinded treatment with either RSG/MET fixed-dose combination (n = 155), MET (n = 154) or RSG (n = 159). The groups were comparable at baseline, with mean A1c of 8.8% and FPG of 11 mmol/l. RSG/MET was initiated with a total daily dose of 2 mg/500 mg and could be increased up to 8 mg/2000 mg; MET therapy began with a total daily dose of 500 mg and could be increased up to 2000 mg; and RSG treatment began with a total daily dose of 4 mg and could be increased up to 8 mg. Medication was uptitrated during on-therapy visits based on failure to attain glycaemic target of mean daily glucose less than or equal to 6.1 mmol/l (unless at maximum tolerated dose). Patients were assessed for efficacy and safety at nine visits over a 32-week treatment period. This was a trial designed to show greater efficacy of RSG/MET combination therapy compared with MET or RSG monotherapy. The primary end point was change in A1c from baseline to week 32. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving recommended A1c and FPG targets for glycaemic control and change from baseline in FPG, free fatty acid, lipids, insulin, insulin sensitivity, C-reactive protein and adiponectin. Safety evaluations included adverse-event (AE) monitoring, changes in weight and clinical laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

At week 32, RSG/MET showed significant improvements in A1c from a baseline of 8.9 +/- 1.1% to 6.6 +/- 1.0% at study end, and this 2.3% reduction was significantly greater than the reductions achieved individually with MET (-1.8%; p = 0.0008) and RSG (-1.6%; p < 0.0001). The greatest mean decrease in FPG was seen with RSG/MET (-4.1 mmol/l) and was significant compared with MET (-2.8 mmol/l; p < 0.0001) and RSG (-2.6 mmol/l; p < 0.0001). Target A1c of less than or equal to 6.5% and less than 7% were achieved in more patients in the RSG/MET group (60% and 77%) than with MET (39% and 57%) or RSG (35% and 58%) respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, with nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea as the most commonly reported AEs. Oedema was comparable between RSG/MET (6%) and RSG (7%) and lower in the MET group (3%). No new safety and tolerability issues were observed in the RSG/MET group.

CONCLUSIONS

As first-line therapy in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, RSG/MET fixed-dose combination therapy achieved significant reductions in A1c and FPG compared with either RSG or MET monotherapy. RSG/MET was generally well tolerated as initial therapy, with no new tolerability issues identified with the fixed-dose combination.

Inhaled human insulin ((insulin human [rDNA origin]) Inhalation Powder) in diabetes mellitus

Inhaled human insulin ((insulin human [rDNA origin]) Inhalation Powder) is a prandial insulin approved in the EU and the US for the treatment of adults with diabetes. Its glycaemic control is comparable to subcutaneous insulin in Type 1 and 2 diabetes, and has superior efficacy versus oral antidiabetic agents in Type 2 diabetes. Hypoglycaemia and mild-to-moderate cough are the main side effects. The treatment group differences in pulmonary function occur early, and are small, nonprogressive for up to 2 years and reversible following discontinuation. Patient-reported outcomes data displays higher diabetes treatment satisfaction, improvements in some quality-of-life scores, and treatment preference with inhaled human insulin versus traditional means. Availability of inhaled insulin may increase insulin acceptance and thus improve glycaemic control in patients with diabetes.

Effect of metformin plus roziglitazone compared with metformin alone on glycaemic control in well-controlled Type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate the effect of metformin plus roziglitazione (RSGMET) compared with metformin alone (MET) on glycaemic control in well-controlled Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Subjects (drug naïve or those on glucose-lowering monotherapy) were randomized (n = 526), following a 4-week placebo run-in period, to RSGMET [4 mg rosiglitazone (RSG)/500 mg MET] or MET 500 mg. From weeks 2-18, medication was escalated every 4 weeks (based on gastrointestinal tolerability), then remained at RSGMET 8 mg/2 g or MET 3 g for 14 weeks.

RESULTS

RSGMET reduced HbA(1c) from 7.2 +/- 0.6 to 6.7 +/- 0.8% at week 32, compared with a reduction from 7.2 +/- 0.6 to 6.8 +/- 0.9% with MET (treatment difference -0.13%; P = 0.0357). More subjects achieved an HbA(1c) value of </= 6.5% at week 32 with RSGMET (51.6 vs. 43.7%), but the treatment difference was not significant (odds ratio 1.37, P = 0.0949). RSGMET produced larger reductions from baseline in mean fasting plasma glucose (adjusted difference -0.62 mmol/l, P < 0.0001), with the odds ratio of achieving a target of < 7.0 mmol/l being 2.33 (P < 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in favour of RSGMET relative to MET were seen for homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-derived estimates of insulin sensitivity and pancreatic B-cell function, C-reactive protein (CRP), and systolic blood pressure. Overall rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (relevant to the known profile of MET) were comparable, but with a lower incidence of diarrhoea (8 vs. 18%) with RSGMET. Hypoglycaemia was reported in </= 7% subjects per group.

CONCLUSIONS

RSGMET provided similar short-term glycaemic control to MET with greater improvements in estimates of insulin sensitivity, B-cell function and CRP, with less diarrhoea and low risk of biochemical hypoglycaemia, suggesting that early use of combination therapy may be appropriate.

Closing the gap between clinical research and clinical practice: can outcome studies with thiazolidinediones improve our understanding of type 2 diabetes?

Recent clinical research has provided a wealth of information to support optimal management strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In particular, outcome studies appropriately have had an increasingly important impact on clinical decision-making. Additional, new data are required, however, to close the current gaps in clinical knowledge and improve patient outcomes in T2DM. These outcome studies are particularly important in assessing the long-term benefit of newer agents for which data are available for short-term glycaemic control, effects on lipids and some data on non-traditional cardiovascular risk markers, but outcome data for harder end points relevant to the natural history of T2DM, particularly beta-cell function, are lacking. Outcome studies such as ADOPT and DREAM are investigating the impact of thiazolidinediones (TZDs) on beta-cell function and disease progression in T2DM and impaired glucose tolerance, respectively, the results of which are eagerly anticipated. The primary focus of this article is on TZD outcome studies evaluating beta-cell function and disease progression.

The place of sulfonylureas in the therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Sulfonylureas are still largely used for treatment of type 2 diabetic patients, and they still occupy a central position in many international therapy guidelines. More recently concern has been raised with respect to possible adverse effects associated with the use of these agents. Sulfonylureas are, indeed, believed to favor the development of hypoglycemia, to accelerate beta cell apoptosis and beta-cell exhaustion, and to impair endothelial function with increased risk for ischemic complications. However, because of the intrinsic pathogenetic heterogeneity of type 2 diabetes, sulfonylureas are likely to remain a therapeutic option. Careful choice of a specific sulfonylurea should be made on the basis of efficacy, safety, convenience, tissue specificity, and neutrality with respect to the beta cell. In this review the advantage:disadvantage ratio of available sulfonylureas is analyzed with the purpose of providing a critical clinical appraisal of the role of sulfonylureas in the modern treatment of type 2 diabetes.