Metformin added to insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus in adolescents

A Pilot Study to Assess Effect of Metformin Therapy on Prevention of Double Diabetes in Indian Adolescents with Type-1 Diabetes

Introduction

Increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome in Indian adolescents owing to the obesity epidemic leads to double diabetes (DD), which is associated with an increased risk of complications in type-1 diabetes (T1D). Metformin may be a useful intervention for the prevention and treatment of insulin resistance in T1D. We conducted this pilot randomized controlled trial with the objective of investigating the effect of metformin on insulin sensitivity in Indian adolescents with T1D.

Method

This pilot randomized controlled trial was performed on 59 participants with T1D aged 10-19 years distributed uniformly by gender and puberty across two groups with a 3-month intervention period. The intervention group received metformin (weight less than 60 kg received 500 mg twice daily and more than 60 kg received 1 gm twice daily) and non-metformin group received standard of care for diabetes. Anthropometric, clinical details, biochemistry and insulin sensitivity indices (ISI) were evaluated using standard protocols at baseline and endline.

Result

22.2% of subjects from non-metformin group and 12.5% from metformin group were at the risk of the development of DD. The odds ratio and relative risk for the development of DD in non-metformin subjects were 2.0 and 1.4, respectively, as compared to participants in metformin group. The mean improvement in ISI ranged from 1.4% to 4.6% in participants on metformin as opposed to deterioration of -2% to -14.1% in non-metformin group. On performing the paired sample t-test, the reduction in ISI in non-metformin group was significant.

Conclusion

Metformin may prevent deterioration in insulin sensitivity in Indian adolescents with T1D.

Highlighting the Role of Obesity and Insulin Resistance in Type 1 Diabetes and Its Associated Cardiometabolic Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review appraises research data on the potentially harmful effect of obesity and insulin resistance (IR) co-existence with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM)-related cardiovascular (CVD) complications and evaluates possible therapeutic options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Obesity and IR have increasingly been emerging in patients with T1DM. Genetic, epigenetic factors, and subcutaneous insulin administration are implicated in the pathogenesis of this coexistence. Accumulating evidence implies that the concomitant presence of obesity and IR is an independent predictor of worse CVD outcomes. The prevalence of obesity and IR has increased in patients with T1DM. This increase can be partly attributed to general population trends but, additionally, to iatrogenic weight gain caused by insulin treatment. This association might be the missing link explaining the excess CVD burden observed in patients with T1DM despite optimal glycemic control. Data on newer agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment are unraveling novel ways to challenge this aggravating coexistence.

Benefits of metformin add-on insulin therapy (MAIT) for HbA1c and lipid profile in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: preliminary report from a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Metabolic control during puberty is impaired in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) patients due to increased insulin resistance. Metformin is one of the oral medications typically used in type 2 diabetes mellitus to reduce insulin resistance. We aimed to examine the effect of metformin on glycemic indices and insulin daily dosage in adolescents with T1DM.

METHODS

The present clinical trial was carried out on 50 adolescents aged 10-20 years with T1DM referred to the Endocrinology Clinic of Mofid Children's Hospital in Tehran for nine months. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. In the first group, metformin was added to insulin therapy, while the second group continued routine insulin therapy combined with placebo. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, BMI, insulin dosage, and blood pressure were measured at the beginning of the study and repeated every three months. Serum lipid profile, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and liver enzymes were also measured twice: At the beginning and end of the study (after nine months).

RESULTS

The HbA1c level (p<0.001) and insulin dosage (p=0.04) were lower in the metformin group than in the placebo group after nine months. Daily insulin dosage variability was significantly lower in the metformin recipient group (p=0.041). Serum triglyceride, cholesterol, and creatinine were significantly lower in the metformin arm than in the placebo arm (p<0.05). However, metformin did not affect LDL, HDL, liver enzymes, and BUN.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive metformin therapy reduces insulin dosage by inhibiting insulin resistance and weight gain. It helps decrease daily insulin dosage variability, which may prevent hypoglycemia. Also, metformin reduces creatinine, preventing renal failure in the long term.

Coexistence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a case report of "double" diabetes in a 17-year-old Nigerian girl

Double diabetes otherwise known as hybrid diabetes, a new variant, is a combination of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. It is a diabetes variant increasing in prevalence in developed countries because of epidemic obesity among children and adolescents but extremely rare in developing countries. Double diabetes is characterized by features of both type 1 (diabetes auto-antibodies) and type 2 (obesity and insulin resistance). This occurrence can either develop on a background of type 1 diabetes due to an abnormal increase in weight from physiological growth spurt in adolescents or from high insulin dosage developing on a background of type 2 diabetes. The variant has been linked to possible increased cardiovascular risks and worsened morbidity including poor glycaemic control. Here, we report a case of a 17-year-old girl who developed features of type 2 diabetes on a background of type 1 diagnosed 6 years after T1D diagnosis.

The clinical application of metformin in children and adolescents: A short update

Metformin is a widely used drug that results in clear benefits in relation to glucose metabolism and diabetes-related complications. The global increase in the prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents is accompanied by the appearance and increasing prevalence of insulin resistance, prediabetes, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In addition, children, and adolescents with premature pubarche and polycystic ovary have considerable degree of insulin resistance. The insulin sensitizing actions of metformin encouraged many investigators and physician to use it as the key drug in these conditions for both prevention and treatment. However, long term-controlled studies are still required to assess the degree and duration of effectiveness and safety of using metformin. This review tries to update physicians about the main and the new therapeutic perspectives of this drug.

Double or hybrid diabetes: A systematic review on disease prevalence, characteristics and risk factors

Diabetes mellitus is a worldwide epidemic affecting the health of millions of people. While type 1 diabetes (T1D) is caused by autoimmune destruction of the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas, type 2 diabetes (T2D) results from a combination of insulin resistance and beta cell insulin secretory defect. Clear definition and diagnosis of these two types of diabetes has been increasing more and more difficult, leading to the inclusion of a new category, namely double or hybrid diabetes (DD) that demonstrates symptoms of both T1D and T2D via the accelerator hypothesis. In this review, we discuss the worldwide prevalence of DD, its main physiological characteristics, including beta-cell autoimmunity, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease, the main risk factors of developing DD, mainly genetics, obesity and lifestyle choices, as well as potential treatments, such as insulin titration, metformin and behavioural modifications. Increasing awareness of DD among the general population and primary care practitioners is necessary for successfully treating this complex, hybrid disease in the future.

Pharmacologic adjunctive to insulin therapies in type 1 diabetes: The journey has just begun

Treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is currently based exclusively on insulin replacement therapy. However, there is a need for better glycemic control, lower hypoglycemia rates, more effective weight management, and further reduction of cardiovascular risk in people with T1D. In this context, agents from the pharmaceutical quiver of type 2 diabetes are being tested in clinical trials, as adjunctive to insulin therapies for T1D patients. Despite the limited amount of relevant evidence and the inter-class variability, it can be said that these agents have a role in optimizing metabolic control, assisting weight management and reducing glycemic variability in people with T1D. Specific safety issues, including the increased risk of hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, as well as the effects of these treatments on major cardiovascular outcomes should be further assessed by future studies, before these therapeutic choices become widely available for T1D management.

A Review of Insulin Resistance in Type 1 Diabetes: Is There a Place for Adjunctive Metformin?

There is a rising trend of overweight and obesity among individuals with type 1 diabetes. This is often associated with insulin resistance, increased insulin dose requirements and poor glycemic control. Insulin resistance is also seen during puberty and is strongly related to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The role of metformin as an adjunct to ongoing intensive insulin therapy in type 1 diabetics has been evaluated in several randomized trials, including the recently concluded T1D Exchange Network trial in adolescents and the REMOVAL trial in adults. Metformin reduces the insulin dose requirement, insulin-induced weight gain, and total and LDL cholesterol, but results in an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects and a minor increase in the risk of hypoglycemia. In addition, metformin has been shown to reduce maximal carotid intima media thickness and therefore may extend cardioprotective benefits in type 1 diabetes. The role of metformin as adjunctive therapy in type 1 diabetes needs to be explored further in outcome trials.

Pharmacological Treatment in Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 - Insulin and What Else?

The basis of treatment in autoimmune diabetes is insulin therapy; however, many clinical cases have proven that this method does not solve all problems. Trials of causal treatment including blocking the autoimmune processes and insulin-producing cells transplants were carried out. Those methods require more research to be concerned as efficient and safe ways of treatment in type 1 diabetes. The use of non-insulin adjunct treatment is a new trend. It has been successfully used in laboratories as well as clinical trials. Metformin is the most widely used drug, together with sodium-glucose co-transporters 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, amylin analogues, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. The results of administration of these medicaments give good outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1. Most likely, in the near future, they will progressively be used in both adult and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes. Further multicenter, randomized studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of treatment and long term safety of these drugs.

The Effect of Metformin as an Adjunct Therapy in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The strict control of blood glucose levels in adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) is accompanied with a considerable long term decrease in microvasular and macrovascular complications.

AIM

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of metformin as an adjunct therapy in adolescents with poorly controlled Type 1 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It was a quasi-experimental (an uncontrolled before and after) study. The study population consisted of the patients aged over 10 years with T1DM. Metformin tablet was added to patient's insulin therapy for 12 months. Haemoglobin A1c protein was measured in the beginning of the study and repeated with three months intervals till the end of it. Insulin dosage, Body Mass Index (BMI), serum lipid, creatinine and lactate level were measured twice; in the beginning of the study and at the end of it (after 12 months). Data was analysed by SPSS (version 18) software. Paired- t-test, Wilcoxon signed ranks test and Repeated Measure ANOVA were used to examine the study's hypothesis. A p-value <0.05 was considered as significant.

RESULTS

Twenty nine patients were included in the study. HbA1c level and insulin dosage was significantly reduced (p<0.001) after one month of metformin as an adjunct therapy. Serum lipid was decreased (p=0.7). Weight (p<0.001) and BMI (p=0.007) were increased.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive metformin therapy reduced HbA1c value and the insulin dosage received in adolescents with T1DM.

The Effect of Metformin on Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. The effect of metformin in combination with insulin in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) is controversial. Methods and Results. The PubMed and EMBASE online databases were searched. Five double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included 301 adolescents with T1DM were identified. Metformin plus insulin was associated with reduced hemoglobin A1C levels, total daily insulin dosage, body mass index (BMI), and body weight. However, the subgroup analysis demonstrated that HbA1c levels were not significantly changed in overweight/obese adolescents and were significantly reduced in the general patients. On the contrary, BMI and body weight were significantly reduced in overweight/obese adolescents but not in the general patients. Metformin was associated with higher incidence of adverse events. Conclusions. Among adolescents with T1DM, administering adjunctive metformin therapy in addition to insulin was associated with improved HbA1c levels, total daily insulin dosage, BMI, and body weight. However, there may be differences in the effects of this regimen between overweight/obese and nonobese adolescents. The risk of an adverse event may be increased with metformin treatment. These results provide strong evidence supporting future high-quality, large-sample trials.

Combined therapy with metformin and insulin attenuates systemic and hepatic alterations in a model of high-fat diet-/streptozotocin-induced diabetes

In this study we have explored the pathogenesis of the hepatic alterations which occur in diabetes and the modulation of these complications by the combination of metformin adjunct treatment and insulin monotherapy. For this purpose, diabetic rats were treated with insulin (DM + Ins) or metformin plus insulin (DM + Met + Ins). Biochemical and cardiometabolic parameters were analysed by spectrophotometry. Intravital microscopy was used to study the hepatic microcirculation. In the liver tissue, real-time PCR was used to analyse oxidative stress enzymes, inflammatory markers and receptors for advanced glycation end products (AGE) (RAGE) gene expression. Lipid peroxidation was assessed by thiobarbituric acid reactive species (TBARs) analyses. AGE deposition and RAGE protein expression were studied by fluorescence spectrophotometry and Western blot respectively. Body weight, %HbA1c , urea, total proteins and oxidative stress parameters were found to be similarly improved by insulin or Met + Ins treatments. On the other hand, Met + Ins treatment showed a more pronounced effect on fasting blood glucose level than insulin monotherapy. Fructosamine, uric acid, creatinine, albumin and amylase levels and daily insulin dose requirements were found to be only improved by the combined Met + Ins treatment. Liver, renal and pancreatic dysfunction markers were found to be more positively affected by metformin adjunct therapy when compared to insulin treatment. Liver microcirculation damage was found to be completely protected by Met + Ins treatment, while insulin monotherapy showed no effect. Our results suggest that oxidative stress, microcirculatory damage and glycated proteins could be involved in the aetiology of liver disease due to diabetes. Additionally, metformin adjunct treatment improved systemic and liver injury in induced diabetes and showed a more pronounced effect than insulin monotherapy.

Clinical, Psychosocial, and Demographic Factors Are Associated With Overweight and Obesity in Early Adolescent Girls With Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to examine the differences in clinical, psychosocial, and demographic factors by sex and weight status.

METHODS

Baseline data were analyzed from 318 adolescents (mean age = 12.3 ± 1.1 years, 55.0% female, 62.7% white) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from a multisite clinical trial. Differences were examined between normal weight (body mass index ≥5th and <85th percentile) and overweight/obese (body mass index ≥85th percentile) boys and girls with T1D in clinical, psychosocial, and demographic factors. Descriptive and multiple logistic regression analyses were used.

RESULTS

Overweight/obesity was prevalent (39.0%) and common in girls (42.6%) and boys (33.1%). In bivariate analyses, overweight/obese girls had parents with lower educational attainment, longer diabetes duration, and significantly worse self-management and psychosocial health as compared with normal weight girls. There were no differences between overweight/obese and normal weight girls in A1C, therapy type, race/ethnicity, or household income. No significant differences were found between normal weight and overweight/obese boys. In multivariate analysis, parental educational attainment (master or higher vs high school diploma or less) and perceived stress were significantly associated with overweight/obesity in girls. Longer duration of T1D bordered statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Overweight/obesity is prevalent among adolescents with T1D. Clinical, psychosocial, and demographic factors are associated with overweight/obesity in girls but not boys. Greater attention to weight status and aspects of health that are germane to adolescents with T1D is warranted.

Insulin resistance is associated with all chronic complications in type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin resistance (IR) is present in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and is suggested to be related to chronic diabetic complications. The primary aim of our study was to assess IR in T1DM patients with and without chronic complications. A secondary aim was to evaluate the possible association between IR and chronic diabetic complications.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study enrolled 272 patients with T1DM. Insulin resistance was quantified using the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR). Associations between eGDR and each diabetes complication were first evaluated using binary logistic regression, then multiparametric logistic regression with stepwise selection of covariates. The discriminative value of eGDR was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Estimated GDR was lower in patients with chronic diabetic complications (6.1 vs. 6.9 mg/kg per min [P = 0.02] for retinopathy; 6.3 vs. 7.3 mg/kg per min [P < 0.01] for nephropathy; 6.5 vs. 7.6 mg/kg per min [P < 0.01] for neuropathy; and 5.2 vs. 7.5 mg/kg per min [P < 0.01] for cardiovascular complications). In univariate analysis eGDR was associated all diabetic complications. These associations remained significant after adjustment for different variables in the final regression models. In addition, eGDR was a good discriminator for each diabetic complication, with an area under the curve between 0.609 and 0.759.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic diabetic complications are more insulin resistant than those without complications. Moreover, IR was independently associated with the presence of each chronic diabetic complication, and seems to be a good discriminator for them all.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Adjunctive Metformin Therapy in Overweight/Obese Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Context

Insulin resistance has been proposed as one of the causes of poor glycemic control in overweight/obese youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, the role of adjunctive metformin, an insulin sensitizer, on glycemic control in these patients is unclear.

Objective

To compare the effect of metformin vs. placebo on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), total daily dose (TDD) of insulin, and other parameters in overweight/obese youth with T1D.

Hypothesis

Adjunctive metformin therapy will improve glycemic control in overweight/obese youth with T1D.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A 9-mo randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of metformin and placebo in 28 subjects (13m/15f) of ages 10-20years (y), with HbA1c >8% (64 mmol/mol), BMI >85%, and T1D > 12 months was conducted at a university outpatient facility. The metformin group consisted of 15 subjects (8 m/ 7f), of age 15.0 ± 2.5 y; while the control group was made up of 13 subjects (5m/ 8f), of age 14.5 ± 3.1y. All participants employed a self-directed treat-to-target insulin regimen based on a titration algorithm of (-2)-0-(+2) units to adjust their long-acting insulin dose every 3rd day from -3 mo through +9 mo to maintain fasting plasma glucose (FPG) between 90–120 mg/dL (5.0–6.7 mmol/L). Pubertal maturation was determined by Tanner stage.

Results

Over the course of the 9 months of observation, the between-treatment differences in HbA1c of 0.4% (9.85% [8.82 to 10.88] for placebo versus 9.46% [8.47 to 10.46] for metformin) was not significant (p = 0.903). There were non-significant reduction in fasting plasma glucose (189.4 mg/dL [133.2 to 245.6] for placebo versus 170.5 mg/dL [114.3 to 226.7] for metformin), (p = 0.927); total daily dose (TDD) of short-acting insulin per kg body weight/day(p = 0.936); and the TDD of long-acting insulin per kg body weight per day (1.15 units/kg/day [0.89 to 1.41] for placebo versus 0.90 units/kg/day [0.64 to 1.16] for metformin) (p = 0.221). There was no difference in the occurrence of hypoglycemia between the groups.

Conclusions

This 9-month RCT of adjunctive metformin therapy in overweight and obese youth with T1D resulted in a 0.4% lower HbA1c value in the metformin group compared to the placebo group.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01334125

Effects of low dose metformin in adolescents with type I diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Insulin resistance increases during adolescence in those with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), complicating glycemic control and potentially increasing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Metformin, typically used in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is a possible adjunct therapy in T1DM to help improve glycemic control and insulin sensitivity.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that metformin would improve metabolic parameters in adolescents with T1DM.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial included 74 pubertal adolescents (ages: 13-20 yr) with T1DM. Participants were randomized to receive either metformin or placebo for 6 months. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), insulin dose, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and blood pressure were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months, with fasting lipids measured at baseline and 6 months.

RESULTS

Total daily insulin dose, BMI z-score and waist circumference significantly decreased at 3 and 6 months compared to baseline within the metformin group, even among normal-weight participants. In the placebo group, total insulin dose and systolic blood pressure increased significantly at 3 months and total insulin dose increased significantly at 6 months. No significant change was observed in HbA1c at any time point between metformin and placebo groups or within either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose metformin likely improves BMI as well as insulin sensitivity in T1DM adolescents, as indicated by a decrease in total daily insulin dose. The decrease in waist circumference indicates that fat distribution is also likely impacted by metformin in T1DM. Further studies with higher metformin doses and more detailed measurements are needed to confirm these results, their underlying mechanisms, and potential impact on CVD in T1DM youth.

Metformin for the treatment of hyperandrogenism in adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

A high prevalence of hyperandrogenism has been reported in women with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Metformin has been used as a therapeutic agent in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome and in T1D patients without hyperandrogenism. This study sought to determine the effect of metformin on hyperandrogenism and ovarian function in adolescents with T1D.

METHODS

We recruited 24 girls with T1D. The participants had hyperandrogenism and displayed suboptimal metabolic control. The patients were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. One group received metformin (850 mg bid) and the other group received a placebo. Treatment was administered for 9 months. Ovulation, steroids and gonadotropin levels were evaluated.

RESULTS

Metformin treatment was associated with decreases in testosterone, free androgen index, androstenedione, 17-OH progesterone and estradiol levels. The girls who were treated with placebo showed stable steroid, gonadotropin and sex hormone-binding globulin levels during the analysis. No differences were observed in the Ferriman-Gallwey scores, ovulation rates, HbA1c levels or daily insulin doses of the girls treated with metformin compared with the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Treating hyperandrogenic T1D adolescents with metformin significantly decreased the serum androgens compared to the placebo, but metformin therapy did not significantly affect clinical parameters, such as hirsutism, ovulation and metabolic control.

Metformin: an old but still the best treatment for type 2 diabetes

The management of T2DM requires aggressive treatment to achieve glycemic and cardiovascular risk factor goals. In this setting, metformin, an old and widely accepted first line agent, stands out not only for its antihyperglycemic properties but also for its effects beyond glycemic control such as improvements in endothelial dysfunction, hemostasis and oxidative stress, insulin resistance, lipid profiles, and fat redistribution. These properties may have contributed to the decrease of adverse cardiovascular outcomes otherwise not attributable to metformin's mere antihyperglycemic effects. Several other classes of oral antidiabetic agents have been recently launched, introducing the need to evaluate the role of metformin as initial therapy and in combination with these newer drugs. There is increasing evidence from in vivo and in vitro studies supporting its anti-proliferative role in cancer and possibly a neuroprotective effect. Metformin's negligible risk of hypoglycemia in monotherapy and few drug interactions of clinical relevance give this drug a high safety profile. The tolerability of metformin may be improved by using an appropiate dose titration, starting with low doses, so that side-effects can be minimized or by switching to an extended release form. We reviewed the role of metformin in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and describe the additional benefits beyond its glycemic effect. We also discuss its potential role for a variety of insulin resistant and pre-diabetic states, obesity, metabolic abnormalities associated with HIV disease, gestational diabetes, cancer, and neuroprotection.

Cardiovascular disease risk in young people with type 1 diabetes

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most frequent cause of death in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), despite modern advances in glycemic control and CVD risk factor modification. CVD risk identification is essential in this high-risk population, yet remains poorly understood. This review discusses the risk factors for CVD in young people with T1D, including hyperglycemia, traditional CVD risk factors (dyslipidemia, smoking, physical activity, hypertension), as well as novel risk factors such as insulin resistance, inflammation, and hypoglycemia. We present evidence that adverse changes in cardiovascular function, arterial compliance, and atherosclerosis are present even during adolescence in people with T1D, highlighting the need for earlier intervention. The methods for investigating cardiovascular risk are discussed and reviewed. Finally, we discuss the observational studies and clinical trials which have thus far attempted to elucidate the best targets for early intervention in order to reduce the burden of CVD in people with T1D.

Do obese children with diabetic ketoacidosis have type 1 or type 2 diabetes?

OBJECTIVE

Many obese children with unprovoked diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) display clinical features of type 2 diabetes during follow up. We describe the clinical presentation, autoimmune markers and the long-term course of obese and lean children with DKA.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records on the initial acute hospitalization and outpatient follow-up care of 21 newly diagnosed obese and 20 lean children with unprovoked DKA at Emory University affiliated children's hospitals between 1/2003 and 12/2006.

RESULTS

Obese children with DKA were older and predominantly male, had acanthosis nigricans, and had lower prevalence of autoantibodies to islet cells and glutamic acid decarboxylase than lean children. Half of the obese, but none of the lean children with DKA achieve near-normoglycemia remission and discontinued insulin therapy during follow-up. Time to achieve remission was 2.2±2.3 months. There were no differences on clinical presentation between obese children who achieved near-normoglycemia remission versus those who did not. The addition of metformin to insulin therapy shortly after resolution of DKA resulted in lower hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, higher rates of near-normoglycemia remission, and lower frequency of DKA recurrence. Near-normoglycemia remission, however, was of short duration and the majority of obese patients required reinstitution of insulin treatment within 15 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to lean children with DKA, many obese children with unprovoked DKA display clinical and immunologic features of type 2 diabetes during follow-up. The addition of metformin to insulin therapy shortly after resolution of DKA improves glycemic control, facilitates achieving near-normoglycemia remission and prevents DKA recurrence in obese children with DKA.

Therapeutics in pediatric diabetes: insulin and non-insulin approaches. Part of a series on Pediatric Pharmacology, guest edited by Gianvincenzo Zuccotti, Emilio Clementi, and Massimo Molteni

Treatment of pediatric diabetes can be challenging. Strict glucose control can be accompanied by hypoglycemia and weight gain. Recently, there have been many developments in insulin preparations and delivery methods which make insulin levels more close to a physiologic pattern. Newly developed rapid/long acting analogues and delivery devices such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII, insulin pump) may reduce hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control. CSII combined with continuous glucose monitoring can achieve even better glycemic control. The closed-loop system is rapidly evolving and an artificial pancreas will be available in the near future. It is now recognized that several hormones other than insulin such as glucagon, amylin, and incretins contribute to glucose homeostasis. The role of co-adjuncts such as metformin, amylin analogues, and incretin based therapy is now emerging. Immunotherapy in a high risk population or patients in the early phase of type 1 diabetes may prevent further destruction of pancreatic β cells.

A review of diabetes treatment adherence and the association with clinical and economic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The benefits of drug therapy to diabetic patients in terms of glycemic control, microvascular complications, cardiovascular event risk, mortality, and quality of life have been well established by clinical trial data. However, it has been a challenge to quantify the relationship between adherence and outcomes such as glycemic control, disease-related events, hospitalizations, cost, and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a comprehensive summary of empirical studies that examine the associations between adherence and glycemic control, health care utilization, quality of life, and mortality in patients with diabetes. It is intended to provide a framework for researchers interested in conducting studies to improve their understanding of the value of medication adherence for patients with diabetes.

METHODS

Relevant published articles were identified through searches of the National Center for Biotechnology PubMed database. Medical subject heading (MESH) terms diabetes mellitus, hypoglycemic agents, and insulin, were each combined with the MESH term medication adherence and with the subheadings economics, prevention and control, psychology, statistics and numerical data, therapy, adverse effects, therapeutic use, and administration and dosage, where available. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) analyzed empirical data on some measure of patient adherence to diabetes pharmacotherapy; (2) described methods for measuring patient adherence; (3) evaluated economic, clinical, or humanistic outcomes related to diabetes; and (4) had as a goal of the research to evaluate the link between patient adherence and outcomes (as a primary or secondary objective). The data from the articles meeting these criteria were then abstracted, including mention of the specific interventions being compared, specific methods for measuring adherence, outcomes compared between adherent and nonadherent patients and how these outcomes were measured, and information on variables that were adjusted for in predictive and causal multivariable models.

RESULTS

A total of 37 articles that met all 4 criteria in this review underwent data extraction. Of these studies, 22 (59%) used objective measures to assess adherence, with 1 study using pill counts to assess adherence and 21 using either pharmacy claims or similar refill records to assess refill behavior. The remaining 15 (41%) studies used a wide variety of subjective patient-reported adherence assessments. The majority (13/23 [57%]) of the glycemic control studies reported that improved adherence was associated with better glycemic control. The ability to draw a distinction between adherence and glycemic control tended to occur more frequently [7/9 (78%)] among studies that characterized adherence in terms of prescription refills compared with studies that used various constructs for patient-reported adherence measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the literature, better adherence was found to be associated with improved glycemic control and decreased health care resource utilization. There was no consistent association between improved adherence and decreased health care costs. Little data were available on the association between adherence and quality of life.

Approach to the obese adolescent with new-onset diabetes

The prevalence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents has been steadily increasing over the last few decades. However, as the general pediatric population becomes more obese and more ethnically diverse, reliance on phenotypic characteristics for distinguishing between these types of diabetes is becoming increasingly untenable. Yet, the recognition of differences in treatment strategies, associated disorders, and both short- and long-term diabetes and cardiovascular outcomes supports the importance of diagnostic efforts to make a distinction between diabetes types. An approach to determination of diabetes type is discussed, focused on the presence or absence of autoimmunity and assessment of β-cell function. At the time of diagnosis, it is generally not possible to be certain of diabetes type, and therefore, initial treatment decisions must be made based on aspects of the presenting physiology, with adjustments in treatment approach made as the individual's course proceeds and additional information becomes available. The apparent overlap between type 1 and type 2 diabetes that occurs in obese adolescents has resulted in some controversy regarding mixed forms of diabetes that are ultimately semantic, but this does raise interesting questions about the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the presence of an insulin-resistant phenotype. Finally, the lack of information about the efficacy of treatment of cardiovascular risk factors, such as dyslipidemia and hypertension, along with the well-documented challenges in adherence to chronic illness treatment in this population, creates substantial challenges.

The use of metformin in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of efficacy

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

As adding metformin to insulin therapy has been advocated in type 1 diabetes, we conducted a systematic review of published clinical trials and clinical trial databases to assess the effects on HbA(1c), weight, insulin-dose requirement and adverse effects.

METHODS

We constructed evidence tables and fitted a fixed-effects model (inverse variance method) in order to assess heterogeneity between studies and give a crude measure of each overall treatment effect.

RESULTS

Of 197 studies identified, nine involved randomisation with informed consent of patients with type 1 diabetes to metformin (vs placebo or comparator) in either a parallel or crossover design for at least 1 week. We noted marked heterogeneity in study design, drug dose, age of participants and length of follow-up. Metformin was associated with reductions in: (1) insulin-dose requirement (5.7-10.1 U/day in six of seven studies); (2) HbA(1c) (0.6-0.9% in four of seven studies); (3) weight (1.7-6.0 kg in three of six studies); and (4) total cholesterol (0.3-0.41 mmol/l in three of seven studies). Metformin was well tolerated, albeit with a trend towards increased hypoglycaemia. Formal estimates of combined effects from the five trials which reported appropriate data indicated a significant reduction in insulin dose (6.6 U/day, p < 0.001) but no significant reduction in HbA(1c) (absolute reduction 0.11%, p = 0.42). No reported trials included cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Metformin reduces insulin-dose requirement in type 1 diabetes but it is unclear whether this is sustained beyond 1 year and whether there are benefits for cardiovascular and other key clinical outcomes.