Glargine insulin/gliclazide MR combination therapy is more effective than premixed insulin monotherapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs

Current Position of Gliclazide and Sulfonylureas in the Contemporary Treatment Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review

The increasing burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in relation to alarming rise in the prevalence; challenges in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment; as well as the substantial impact of disease on longevity and quality of life, is a major concern in healthcare worldwide. Sulfonylureas (SUs) have been a cornerstone of T2D pharmacotherapy for over 60 years as oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), while the newer generation SUs, such as gliclazide modified release (MR), are known to be associated with low risk of hypoglycemia in addition to the cardiovascular neutrality. This scoping review aimed to specifically address the current position of gliclazide MR among other SUs in the contemporary treatment paradigm for T2D and to provide a practical guidance document to assist clinicians in using gliclazide MR in real-life clinical practice. The main topics addressed in this paper include the role of early and sustained glycemic control and use of SUs in T2D management, the properties of gliclazide MR in relation to its effectiveness and safety, the use of gliclazide therapy in special populations, and the place of SUs as a class and gliclazide MR specifically in the current T2D treatment algorithm.

The Position of Gliclazide in the Evolving Landscapes and Disease Continuum of T2DM: A Collaborative Delphi Survey-Based Consensus from India

INTRODUCTION

This Delphi study aims to provide evidence-based expert opinion on the usage and current position of gliclazide in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management in India.

METHODS

The single interaction modified Delphi-based methodology was used to collect opinions on gliclazide usage and its position in diabetes management from 338 endocrinologists/diabetologists who have had clinical experience with gliclazide. Participants, using a 9-point scale, were asked to rate eight statements comprising a total of 52 items on the related topics.

RESULTS

The Delphi consensus suggests that in drug-naïve patients with T2DM, intolerant to metformin or in whom metformin is contraindicated, dual therapy of gliclazide/gliclazide-modified release (MR) should be considered along with a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor if glycated hemoglobin A1c level is greater than 7.5% and with insulin if the A1c level is greater than 9%. If the patients are inadequately controlled with metformin (A1c greater than 6.5% after 3 months of therapy), gliclazide/gliclazide-MR shall be added on to the treatment regimen to achieve greater and sustained reductions in A1c levels. However, it was not preferred over other antidiabetic classes in such clinical settings except alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI). Early addition of gliclazide/gliclazide-MR shall be preferred over the up-titration of metformin beyond half-maximal dose for effective management of T2DM. Gliclazide/gliclazide-MR can be used safely in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease. It can be used in older patients with T2DM as it does not have active metabolites and has a low risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel proposed consideration of monotherapy or dual therapy of gliclazide as an ideal choice in patients with T2DM because of its efficacy, long-term glycemic control, favorable renal outcomes, cardiovascular safety, and an optimal safety profile.

CGMS and Glycemic Variability, Relevance in Clinical Research to Evaluate Interventions in T2D, a Literature Review

Glycemic variability (GV) appears today as an integral component of glucose homeostasis for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This review aims at investigating the use and relevance of GV parameters in interventional and observational studies for glucose control management in T2D. It will first focus on the relationships between GV parameters measured by continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) and glycemic control and T2D-associated complications markers. The second part will be dedicated to the analysis of GV parameters from CGMS as outcomes in interventional studies (pharmacological, nutritional, physical activity) aimed at improving glycemic control in patients with T2D. From 243 articles first identified, 63 articles were included (27 for the first part and 38 for the second part). For both analyses, the majority of the identified studies were pharmacological. Lifestyle studies (including nutritional and physical activity-based studies, N-AP) were poorly represented. Concerning the relationships of GV parameters with those for glycemic control and T2D related-complications, the standard deviation (SD), the coefficient of variation (CV), the mean blood glucose (MBG), and the mean amplitude of the glycemic excursions (MAGEs) were the most studied, showing strong relationships, in particular with HbA1c. Regarding the use and relevance of GV as an outcome in interventional studies, in pharmacological ones, SD, MAGE, MBG, and time in range (TIR) were the GV parameters used as main criteria in most studies, showing significant improvement after intervention, in parallel or not with glycemic control parameters' (HbA1c, FBG, and PPBG) improvement. In N-AP studies, the same results were observed for SD, MAGE, and TIR. Despite the small number of N-AP studies addressing both GV and glycemic control parameters compared to pharmacological ones, N-AP studies have shown promising results on GV parameters and would require more in-depth work. Evaluating CGMS-GV parameters as outcomes in interventional studies may provide a more integrative dimension of glucose control than the standard postprandial follow-up. GV appears to be a key component of T2D dysglycemia, and some parameters such as MAGE, SD, or TIR could be used routinely in addition to classical markers of glycemic control such as HbA1c, fasting, or postprandial glycemia.

The Place of Sulfonylureas in the Evolving Landscape of Combination Therapy

This article summarizes a presentation from a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" held on 18 September 2019 during the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona, Spain, and discusses whether sulfonylureas (SUs) are a good 'team player.' It examines the likely impact of using SUs early in the course of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), either alone or in combination with other agents, on glycemic outcomes and net side effects. The management of patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease is discussed, highlighting how glycemic control and cardio-renal effects are equally important in these patients and chronic exposure to hyperglycemia should be minimized. The role of SU-based combination therapy in this patient group is explored, demonstrating how later-generation SUs, either as monotherapy or combined with other antidiabetic drugs, help to ensure maximum benefits with minimal side effects. Evidence regarding the combination of SUs with a sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor shows that this might prove to be a good clinical option, especially in patients with renal impairment.

The Effect of Acarbose on Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Premixed Insulin Compared to Metformin (AIM): An Open-Label Randomized Trial

Background: Acarbose (ACA) can effectively reduce the postprandial blood glucose and has similar antidiabetic effects as metformin (MET). To our knowledge, few studies have compared the effect of ACA or MET on glucose fluctuations. In the present study, we explored the effect of ACA or MET combined with premixed insulin (INS) on glycemic control and glycemic variability (GV). Methods: This was an open-label randomized trial that was conducted in type 2 diabetic patients taking premixed insulin. The patients were assigned to 12 weeks of MET (n = 62) or ACA (n = 62) treatment combined with INS. The main outcomes were changes in GV and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) compared with baseline. Results: Compared with baseline, several GV indices (standard deviation [SD], mean amplitude of glycemic excursions [MAGE]) and blood glucose control indices (mean glucose [MG], time in range [TIR] and HbA1c) were both significantly improved in INS+ACA and INS+MET after 12-week therapy. However, coefficient of variation (CV) was significantly reduced in INS+ACA but not in INS+MET. Moreover, compared with INS+MET, INS+ACA led to a more pronounced percentage change from baseline in CV (26.3% [1.7%-44.6%] vs. 11.9% [-7.0% to 29.9%], P = 0.022), MAGE (40.5% [20.1%-60.5%] vs. 25.2% [-2.1% to 43.4%], P = 0.007) and SD (38.6% [25.2%-57.9%] vs. 30.1% [10.8%-46.5%], P = 0.041). Conclusion: Both MET and ACE combined with INS effectively reduced blood glucose. Compared with MET, ACA combined with INS reduced GV.

Chinese clinical guidelines for continuous glucose monitoring (2018 edition)

Blood glucose monitoring is an important part of diabetes management. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has become an effective complement to conventional blood glucose monitoring methods and has been widely applied in clinical practice. The indications for its use, the accuracy of the generated data, the interpretation of the CGM results, and the application of the results must be standardized. In December 2009, the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) drafted and published the first Chinese Clinical Guideline for Continuous Glucose Monitoring (2009 edition), providing a basis for the standardization of CGM in clinical application. Based on the updates of international guidelines and the increasing evidence of domestic studies, it is necessary to revise the latest CGM guidelines in China so that the recent clinical evidence can be effectively translated into clinical benefit for diabetic patients. To this end, the CDS revised the Chinese Clinical Guideline for Continuous Glucose Monitoring (2012 Edition) based on the most recent evidence from international and domestic studies.

Standards of medical care for type 2 diabetes in China 2019

The prevalence of diabetes in China has increased rapidly from 0.67% in 1980 to 10.4% in 2013, with the aging of the population and westernization of lifestyle. Since its foundation in 1991, the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) has been dedicated to improving academic exchange and the academic level of diabetes research in China. From 2003 to 2014, four versions of Chinese diabetes care guidelines have been published. The guidelines have played an important role in standardizing clinical practice and improving the status quo of diabetes prevention and control in China. Since September 2016, the CDS has invited experts in cardiovascular diseases, psychiatric diseases, nutrition, and traditional Chinese medicine to work with endocrinologists from the CDS to review the new clinical research evidence related to diabetes over the previous 4 years. Over a year of careful revision, this has resulted in the present, new version of guidelines for prevention and care of type 2 diabetes in China. The main contents include epidemiology of type 2 diabetes in China; diagnosis and classification of diabetes; primary, secondary, and tertiary diabetes prevention; diabetes education and management support; blood glucose monitoring; integrated control targets for type 2 diabetes and treatments for hyperglycaemia; medical nutrition therapy; exercise therapy for type 2 diabetes; smoking cessation; pharmacologic therapy for hyperglycaemia; metabolic surgery for type 2 diabetes; prevention and treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes; hypoglycaemia; chronic diabetic complications; special types of diabetes; metabolic syndrome; and diabetes and traditional Chinese medicine.

Efficacy and Safety of Basal Analog Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

This study compared basal analog (BA: glargine U100/mL and detemir) and premix (PM: human, lispro and aspart biphasic) insulin regimens in terms of their efficacy and safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL identified primary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ≥ 12 weeks in duration that compared BA or PM insulin regimens in adults with T2DM, with ≥ 30 patients per arm. A systematic literature review and a pairwise meta-analysis were performed using a random effects model adjusted for between-study variability. Analyses were conducted based on frequency of bolus insulin and PM injections, PM ratio and type, BA type, race, follow-up period, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

RESULTS

Twenty-two primary RCTs with 9691 patients were included. The BA and PM regimens yielded similar changes in HbA1c and postprandial glucose levels, with a statistically significant reduction in fasting glucose [mean difference (MD) - 0.61 mmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.90, - 0.32), I² = 89.6%]. The BA regimens showed significantly reduced rates of total hypoglycemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.77 (95% CI 0.64, 0.92), I² = 65.3%] and changes in body weight [MD - 0.48 kg (95% CI - 0.86, - 0.11), I² = 75.7%] compared to PM regimens. Stratification by PM type and dosing ratio demonstrated statistically significant reductions in HbA1c favoring BA compared to human [MD - 0.39% (95% CI - 0.60, - 0.18), I² = 61.8%] or 50/50-ratio [MD - 0.22% (95% CI - 0.40, - 0.04), I² = 0.0%] PM regimens. Other subgroup analyses found no difference in HbA1c change between the BA and PM regimens.

CONCLUSION

When compared to PM regimens, BA regimens yielded similar efficacies and better safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

FUNDING

Sanofi (Shanghai, China).

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Efficacy and safety of coadministration of sitagliptin with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aim of the randomized present study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of a combination of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor, plus insulin glargine (GL + sita) with that of premixed insulin aspart 30 (NOV) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients controlled with oral hypoglycemic drugs (HbA1c 7 %-9 %).

METHODS

Sixty-five patients were randomized (1:  1) to the GL + sita (n = 33) and NOV (n = 32) groups and were treated with the combination regimen or premixed insulin twice a day for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was mean change in HbA1c. Secondary endpoints included fasting blood glucose, blood glucose profiles (seven time points), rate of achieving target HbA1c (<7 % or ≤6.5 %), insulin dose, incidence of hypoglycemia, and body weight.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks, there was no significant difference in HbA1c between the two groups, although more patients achieved HbA1c <7.0 % in the GL + sita group. There was a significant difference in body weight changes between the GL + sita and NOV groups (-0.45 vs 1.52 kg, respectively; P < 0.001). Mean plasma glucose and the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion were significantly lower in the GL + sita than NOV group (P < 0.005), as was the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia (2.85 % vs. 13.3 %, respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The combination of GL + sita greatly improved HbA1c in T2D patients (HbA1c 7 %-9 %) with an efficacy that was equal to that of premixed insulin. Thus, GL + sita treatment is a viable option for patients who fail to achieve glycemic control using oral hypoglycemic drugs.

Continuous glucose monitoring in China: Then, now and in the future

Glucose monitoring is a key component in assessing glucose metabolic disturbance, evaluating therapeutic outcomes and guiding treatment regimens. For decades, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was one of the dreams of patients with diabetes and diabetologists. In this article, the research progress, opportunities and challenges of the use of CGM technology are reviewed.