Comparison of insulin monotherapy and combination therapy with insulin and metformin or insulin and rosiglitazone or insulin and acarbose in type 2 diabetes

Association between glucose-lowering drugs and circulating insulin antibodies induced by insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin antibodies (IAs) affect blood glucose control in patients receiving insulin therapy.

AIM

To investigate the relationship between different hypoglycemic treatments and IAs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This cross-sectional, retrospective study included 1863 patients with T2DM who were receiving exogenous insulin therapy. All patients received stable antidiabetic therapy in the last 3 months and IA levels were measured using an iodine-125 array.

RESULTS

A total of 1863 patients were enrolled. There were 902 (48.4%) patients who had positive IAs (IA level > 5%), with a mean IA level of 11.06% (10.39%-11.72%). IA levels were positively correlated with high fasting blood glucose (odds ratio = 1.069, P < 0.001). The proportion of positive IAs was lowest in patients using glargine only (31.9%) and highest in patients using human insulin only (70.3%), P < 0.001. The IA levels in patients using sulfonylureas/glinides (8.3%), metformin (9.6%), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (8.2%) were all lower than in patients without these drugs (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of patients on insulin therapy have positive IA antibodies, and IA antibody levels are associated with blood glucose control. Insulin glargine and a combination of oral glucose-lowering drugs were correlated with lower IA levels.

A systematic review, meta-analysis, dose-response, and meta-regression of the effects of acarbose intake on glycemic markers in adults

Purpose

Prior research has yielded mixed results regarding the impact of acarbose intake on glycemic markers. To provide a more comprehensive analysis, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compile data from various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effects of acarbose intake on fasting blood sugar (FBS), insulin, hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) in adults.

Methods

To identify relevant literature up to April 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted on various scholarly databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The effect size of the studies was evaluated using a random-effects model to calculate the weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I2.

Results

This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 101 RCTs with a total of 107 effect sizes. The effect sizes for FBS in milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), insulin in picomoles per liter (pmol/l), hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) in percentage (%), and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were 92, 46, 80, and 22, respectively. The pooled analysis indicated that acarbose intake resulted in significant decreases in FBS (p = 0.018), insulin (p < 0.001), HbA1c (p < 0.001), and HOMA-IR (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that acarbose intake can potentially lead to significant improvements in glycemic parameters by decreasing the levels of FBS, HbA1c, and insulin. However, larger and more rigorously designed studies are still needed to further evaluate and strengthen this association.

The effect of acarbose on inflammatory cytokines and adipokines in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of trials have observed an anti-inflammatory property of acarbose, the currently available research remains controversial regarding its beneficial health effects. Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of acarbose on inflammatory cytokines and adipokines in adults.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were systematically searched until April 2023 using relevant keywords. The mean difference (MD) of any effect was calculated using a random-effects model. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated via the random-effects model.

RESULTS

The current meta-analysis of data comprised a total of 19 RCTs. Meta-analysis showed that acarbose significantly decreased tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) (weighted mean difference [WMD]) = - 4.16 pg/ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 6.58, - 1.74; P = 0.001) while increasing adiponectin (WMD = 0.79 ng/ml, 95% CI 0.02, 1.55; P = 0.044). However, the effects of acarbose on TNF-α concentrations were observed in studies with intervention doses ≥ 300 mg/d (WMD = - 4.09; 95% CI - 7.00, - 1.18; P = 0.006), and the adiponectin concentrations were significantly higher (WMD = 1.03 ng/ml, 95%CI 0.19, 1.87; P = 0.016) in studies in which the duration of intervention was less than 24 weeks. No significant effect was seen for C-reactive protein (CRP; P = 0.134), interleukin-6 (IL-6; P = 0.204), and leptin (P = 0.576).

CONCLUSION

Acarbose had beneficial effects on reducing inflammation and increasing adiponectin. In this way, it may prevent the development of chronic diseases related to inflammation. However, more studies are needed.

Metformin treatment is associated with reduced risk of hypoglycaemia, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality in patients with post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus (PPDM) is a frequent complication of pancreatitis and is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Metformin is recommended for the treatment of PPDM, but evidence of its risk-benefit profile is limited. In a pharmaco-epidemiologic study, we investigated the association between metformin treatment and adverse outcomes in patients with PPDM.

DESIGN AND METHODS

In a Danish nationwide population-based cohort study, we included adults (≥18 years) with incident PPDM or type 2 diabetes between 2009 and 2018. Post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus was categorised into acute and chronic subtypes (PPDM-A and PPDM-C). Associations between metformin treatment and severe hypoglycaemia, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and all-cause mortality were examined across the diabetes subgroups using Cox regression analysis. Treatments with metformin, insulin, and other glucose-lowering therapies were handled as time-varying exposures.

RESULTS

We included 222 337 individuals with new-onset type 2 diabetes and 3781 with PPDM, of whom 2305 (61%) were classified as PPDM-A and 1476 (39%) as PPDM-C. Treatment with metformin was associated with a lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62, P < .0001), MACE (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.92, P = .0071), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.49-0.64, P < .0001) in patients with PPDM. In sensitivity analyses and among individuals with type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment exhibited comparable trends of risk reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin is associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality in patients with PPDM, supporting the use of metformin as a glucose-lowering therapy for these patients.

The effect of acarbose on lipid profiles in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Dyslipidemia, characterized by elevated levels of triglycerides (TG), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol (TC), and reduced levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Several studies have shown the potential of acarbose in improving serum lipid markers. However, there have been conflicting results on the topic in adults. Therefore, a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of acarbose on lipid profiles.

METHODS

The random-effects approach was used to combine the data, and the results were provided as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included a total of 74 studies with a combined sample size of 7046 participants. The results of the analysis showed that acarbose resulted in a reduction in levels of TG (WMD = - 13.43 mg/dl, 95% CI: - 19.20, - 7.67; P < 0.001) and TC (WMD = - 1.93 mg/dl, 95% CI: - 3.71, - 0.15; P = 0.033), but did not affect other lipid markers. When conducting a nonlinear dose-response analysis, we found that acarbose was associated with an increase in levels of HDL (coefficients = 0.50, P = 0.012), with the highest increase observed at a dosage of 400 mg/d. Furthermore, our findings suggested a non-linear relationship between the duration of the intervention and TC (coefficients = - 18.00, P = 0.032), with a decline observed after 50 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that acarbose can reduce serum levels of TG and TC. However, no significant effects were observed on LDL or HDL levels.

The effects of acarbose treatment on cardiovascular risk factors in impaired glucose tolerance and diabetic patients: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Acarbose (ACB) seems to be an effective drug in the management of cardiovascular risk factors. However, no previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been done to evaluate the effects of ACB on cardiovascular risk factors on impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). We comprehensively searched electronic databases including Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for RCTs for related keywords up to September 2022. A random-effects model was used to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The pooled analysis demonstrated that ACB treatment had a significant effect on fasting blood glucose (FBG) (WMD = -3.55 mg/dL; 95%CI: -6.29, -0.81; p = 0.011), fasting insulin (WMD = -6.73 pmoL/L; 95%CI: -10.37, -3.10; p < 0.001), HbA1c [WMD = -0.32%; 95%CI: -0.45, -0.20; p < 0.001], body weight (WMD = -1.25 kg; 95%CI: -1.79, -0.75; p < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) (WMD = -0.64 kg/m2; 95%CI: -0.92, -0.37; p < 0.001), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) (WMD = -2.70 pg/mL, 95%CI: -5.25, -0.16; p = 0.037), leptin (WMD = -1.58 ng/mL; 95%CI: -2.82, -0.35; p = 0.012), alanine transaminase (ALT) (WMD = 0.71 U/L; 95%CI: -0.31, 1.85; p = 0.164), triglyceride (TG) (WMD = -13.89 mg/dL; 95%CI: -20.69, -7.09; p < 0.001), total cholesterol (TC) (WMD = -2.26 mg/dL; 95%CI: -4.18, -0.34; p = 0.021), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (WMD = -1.29 mmHg; 95%CI: -2.44, -0.15; p = 0.027), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD = 0.02 mmHg; 95%CI: -0.41, 0.45; p = 0.925) in an intervention group, compared with a placebo group. The non-linear dose-response analysis showed that ACB reduces the TC in trial duration by >50 weeks, and 180 mg/day is more effective for the decrement of CRP. ACB can improve lipid profiles, glycemic indices, anthropometric indices, and inflammatory markers in T2D, T1D, and IGT patients.

Changes in metformin use and other antihyperglycemic therapies after insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

When patients with type 2 diabetes initiate insulin, metformin should be continued while continuation of other antihyperglycemics has unclear benefit. We aimed to identify practice patterns in antihyperglycemic therapy during the insulin transition, and determine factors associated with metformin continuation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trial which randomized overweight/obese adults under ambulatory care for type 2 diabetes to an intensive lifestyle intervention or diabetes support and education. Among the 931 participants who initiated insulin over ten years, we described longitudinal changes in antihyperglycemic medications during the insulin transition, and performed multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between patient characteristics and metformin continuation.

RESULTS

Before insulin initiation, 81.0% of patients used multiple antihyperglycemics, the most common being metformin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones. After insulin initiation, metformin was continued in 80.3% of patients; other antihyperglycemics were continued less often, yet 58.0% of patients were treated with multiple non-insulin antihyperglycemics. Metformin continuation was inversely associated with age (fully adjusted (a) OR 0.60 per 10 years [0.42-0.86]), serum creatinine above safety thresholds (aOR 0.09 [0.02-0.36]), lower income (P = 0.025 for trend), taking more medications (aOR 0.92 per medication [0.86-0.98]), and initiating rapid, short, or premixed insulin (aOR 0.59 [0.39-0.89]).

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of patients with type 2 diabetes continue metformin after insulin initiation, consistent with guidelines. Other antihyperglycemics are frequently continued along with insulin, and further research is needed to determine which, if any, patients may benefit from this.

Insulin Monotherapy Versus Insulin Combined with Other Glucose-Lowering Agents in Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review

CONTEXT

Insulin can be prescribed as a monotherapy or a combined therapy with other anti-diabetic medications. In this narrative review, the authors aimed to gather data related to comparison of insulin monotherapy versus combination of insulin and other anti-diabetic treatments with regards to different outcome measures in type 2 diabetes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study searched and focused on the most recently published systematic reviews and their references investigating issues related to the primary aim.

RESULTS

The current data available on this topic is heterogeneous and suffers from low quality with respect to most combination treatments. Considering the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of insulin with older hypoglycemic agents, in general metformin and pioglitazone have the best and worst profiles, respectively. Compared to insulin monotherapy, combination of insulin and metformin is associated with better glycemic control, reduced daily insulin dose, less hypoglycemia, and weight gain; combination of insulin and pioglitazone results in greater hypoglycemia and weight gain and is associated with increased risk of edema and heart failure. Regarding sulphonylurea, there is some concern regarding hypoglycemia and weight gain. Addition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to insulin seems to be beneficial with respect to glycemic control without any significant adverse effects. New drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, have acceptable profiles with significant benefits regarding weight reduction when added on insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the quality and longevity of evidence, compared to insulin monotherapy, insulin combined with metformin and pioglitazone has the best and worst profiles, respectively. New anti-diabetic medications have acceptable profiles yet are expensive. It is important for clinicians to meticulously weigh the advantages of combination therapy against the possible adverse effects with each drug class in every patient, individually.

Comparison of non-insulin antidiabetic agents as an add-on drug to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), or thiazolidinedione (TZD) as an adjunctive treatment in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2016. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with covariate adjustment. The primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline. Fifty randomized controlled trials covering 15,494 patients were included. GLP-1RA showed the greatest HbA1c-lowering effect compared to the control (-0.84%; 95% credible interval, -1.00% to -0.69%), followed by TZD (-0.73%; -0.93 to -0.52%), SGLT2i (-0.66%; -0.84% to -0.48%), and DPP4i (-0.54%; -0.68% to -0.39%). SGLT2i showed the greatest fasting plasma glucose reduction. GLP-1RA and SGLT2i showed greater body weight reduction, whereas TZD increased body weight. TZD was ranked the highest in terms of insulin dose reduction. The risk of hypoglycemia was increased with TZD or GLP-1RA. The study provides the best available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of non-insulin anti-diabetic agents on top of pre-existing insulin therapy for inadequately controlled T2DM patients.

Meta-analysis and critical review on the efficacy and safety of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors in Asian and non-Asian populations

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) in Asian and non-Asian type 2 diabetes patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were identified through a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and other databases until December 2016. All statistical analyses were carried out in Review Manager statistical software by computing the weighted mean difference or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 67 studies were included. AGI vs placebo: compared with the placebo, AGI treatment led to a greater decrease in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose. No significant difference was observed in HbA1c change, fasting plasma glucose change, postprandial plasma glucose change or incidence of hypoglycemia between Asian and non-Asian patients. AGI vs active controls: in Asian patients, AGI treatment showed a lower reduction in HbA1c compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea. In non-Asian patients, AGI treatment showed a lower reduction in HbA1c compared with thiazolidinedione. No significant difference was observed in HbA1c change and bodyweight change when comparing AGI with other oral hypoglycemic agents between Asian and non-Asian patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of AGI treatment on glycemic control and bodyweight reduction were superior to the placebo without an increased incidence of hypoglycemia, but with an increased incidence of gastrointestinal discomforts. The hypoglycemic effects of AGI were comparable between Asian and non-Asian patients.

Improving postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes already on basal insulin therapy: Review of current strategies

A large number of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin do not reach their HbA1c goals and require additional therapy to address postprandial hyperglycemia. Guidelines from expert bodies have outlined several approaches to accomplish postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and recent literature suggests several more. This article provides strategies for primary care physicians caring for patients with T2D who do not achieve glycemic control with basal insulin alone. Current treatment guidelines and strategies for improving PPG control are reviewed, including the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rapid-acting insulin (RAI) analogs, premixed insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors. Other approaches, such as combinations of newer basal insulin plus RAI and a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA, are also described.

Evaluation of current trends and recent development in insulin therapy for management of diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes mellitus is a major health problem in developing countries. There are various insulin therapies to manage diabetes mellitus. This systematic review evaluates various insulin therapies for management of diabetes mellitus worldwide. This review also focuses on recent developments being explored for better management of diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

We reviewed a number of published articles from 2002 to 2016 to find out the appropriate management of diabetes mellitus. The paramount parameters of the selected studies include the insulin type & its dose, type of diabetes, duration and comparison of different insulin protocols. In addition, various newly developed approaches for insulin delivery with potential output have also been evaluated.

RESULTS

A great variability was observed in managing diabetes mellitus through insulin therapy and the important controlling factors found for this therapy include; dose titration, duration of insulin use, type of insulin used and combination therapy of different insulin.

CONCLUSION

A range of research articles on current trends and recent advances in insulin has been summarized, which led us to the conclusion that multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (insulin pump) is the best method to manage diabetes mellitus. In future perspectives, development of the oral and inhalant insulin would be a tremendous breakthrough in Insulin therapy.

Resolving the KgA1c paradox in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Excess body weight is a leading cause of metabolic complications such as hypertension and dyslipidemia in T2DM patients. Available antihyperglycemic agents have minimal or no impact on these complications and a majority are known to trigger weight gain, thereby exerting a paradoxical effect on overall metabolic status. This review introduces the concept of 'KgA1c paradox' and underscores the significance of resolving this paradox for comprehensive T2DM management. It provides a therapeutic rationale for inclusion of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in the T2DM treatment algorithm as these agents have demonstrated favorable glycemic effects along with reduction in body weight.

Insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.The majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.Insulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.We did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).The addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.Users of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy.

Effect and cardiovascular safety of adding rosiglitazone to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Recently, the use of rosiglitazone has been limited or withdrawn from the market as a result of cardiovascular risk. However, theoretically adding rosiglitazone to insulin could help insulin to decrease the glucose level. The present meta-analysis was designed to investigate the effect and safety of adding rosiglitazone to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched published and unpublished databases through to March 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rosiglitazone in combination with insulin (RSG + INS) vs insulin alone (INS) in type 2 diabetes with outcomes including glycated hemoglobin levels, insulin dose, lipid parameters, blood pressure, edema and cardiovascular adverse events were selected.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with durations of 24-26 weeks involving 1,916 patients were included. The RSG + INS group showed significantly decreased glycated hemoglobin levels by 0.89% (P < 0.00001) with an 8.48-U reduction in daily insulin dose (P <0.00001). However, the risks of hypoglycemia and edema were more frequent in the RSG+INS group (P < 0.0001; P = 0.03, respectively). Total cholesterol level was significantly increased in the RSG+INS group (P < 0.00001), but none of the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or triglyceride levels were significantly different between groups. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to the risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular death or all-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosiglitazone could help type 2 diabetes patients with poorly controlled glucose with insulin therapy to decrease glucose levels and reduce their daily insulin dose, but at the cost of increased total cholesterol level, hypoglycemia and edema risk. Compared with insulin therapy, adding rosiglitazone to insulin did not increase the risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular death or all-cause death.

Comparisons of the efficacy of alpha glucosidase inhibitors on type 2 diabetes patients between Asian and Caucasian

Background

To compare the efficacy of glycemic control and insulin secretion of alpha glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) on type 2 diabetes patients between Asian and Caucasian.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, CENTRAL were searched and qualified studies in Asian and Caucasian population comparing AGI treatment with placebo or other oral anti-diabetic drugs in type 2 diabetic patients were included. Totally 58 qualified studies were included. When AGI treatment was compared with placebo, a significant difference in HbA1c decline from baseline favoring AGI treatment was found in Asian (weighted mean difference (WMD), −0.50%; 95% CI, −0.66% to −0.34%) and in Caucasian a significant difference in HbA1c decline favoring AGI treatment was also found (WMD, −0.68%; 95% CI, −0.76% to −0.60%). In Asian, fasting plasma glucose was reduced with AGI treatment compared with placebo (WMD, −0.53 mmol/L; 95% CI, −0.91 to −0.14 mmol/L) and in Caucasian there was also a significant difference in FPG changes favoring AGI therapy (WMD, −0.88 mmol/L; 95% CI, −1.00 to −0.77 mmol/L). Studies in Asian showed a significant difference in fasting insulin changes favoring AGI treatment (WMD, −0.78 uU/ml; 95% CI, −0.96 to −0.59 uU/ml). While in Caucasian fasting insulin was decreased without significance with AGI treatment (WMD-1.24 uU/ml; 95% CI, −2.51 to 0.04 uU/ml). Body weight was decreased with AGI treatment in Asian (WMD, −1.00 kg; 95% CI, −1.69 to −0.31 kg) and was also decreased with AGI treatment in Caucasian (WMD, −0.73 kg; 95% CI, −1.13 to −0.33 kg).

Conclusions/Significance

According to results from this meta-analysis, the efficacy in glucose lowering, body weight reduction and insulin secretion decreasing of AGI treatment in Asian were comparable with those in Caucasian.

13-year long-term associations between changes in traditional cardiovascular risk factors and changes in fibrinogen levels: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study

OBJECTIVE

Cross-sectional and prospective studies have linked cardiovascular events and traditional risk factors (TRFs) with higher plasma fibrinogen levels. In a young cohort, we sought to determine longitudinal associations between changes in/development of TRFs and fibrinogen levels over 13 years.

METHODS

We included 2525 adults from the CARDIA study, aged 25-37 with fibrinogen and TRFs measured at year 7 (study baseline; 1992-1993); and year 20 (follow-up). Multiple linear regressions were used to compare mean changes in fibrinogen to TRFs.

RESULTS

Mean fibrinogen increased by 71 mg/dL vs. 70 mg/dL (p = NS) in black vs. white men, and 78 mg/dL vs. 68 mg/dL (p < 0.05) in black vs. white women, respectively over 13 years. After multivariable adjustments, fibrinogen generally rose with increasing BMI (p < 0.001; all sex/race groups), LDL cholesterol, log triglycerides and diastolic blood pressure; and fell with increasing HDL cholesterol and physical activity. 13-year increase in fibrinogen for persons who quit smoking or became non-obese were comparable (p = NS) to that of never-smokers and never-obese persons.

CONCLUSIONS

Among young black and white men and women with few baseline cardiovascular risk factors, fibrinogen tracked longitudinally with changes in TRFs over 13 years through middle age. There was a strong inverse longitudinal relationship between modifiable risk factors (weight loss/smoking cessation) and 13-year change in fibrinogen. Our study helps provide some insight into the role of fibrinogen as a disease marker in the associations between fibrinogen and CVD.

Therapies for type 2 diabetes: lowering HbA1c and associated cardiovascular risk factors

OBJECTIVES

To summarize data supporting the effects of antidiabetes agents on glucose control and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Studies reporting on the effects of antidiabetes agents on glycemic control, body weight, lipid levels, and blood pressure parameters are reviewed and summarized for the purpose of selecting optimal therapeutic regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

National guidelines recommend the aggressive management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes, including weight loss and achieving lipid and blood pressure treatment goals. All antidiabetes pharmacotherapies lower glucose; however, effects on cardiovascular risk factors vary greatly among agents. While thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, and insulin are associated with weight gain, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are considered weight neutral and metformin can be weight neutral or associated with a small weight loss. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and amylinomimetics (e.g. pramlintide) result in weight loss. Additionally, metformin, thiazolidinediones, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have demonstrated beneficial effects on lipid and blood pressure parameters.

CONCLUSION

Management of the cardiovascular risk factors experienced by patients with type 2 diabetes requires a multidisciplinary approach with implementation of treatment strategies to achieve not only glycemic goals but to improve and/or correct the underlying cardiovascular risk factors.

The impact of weight gain on motivation, compliance, and metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes, approximately 85% of whom are overweight or obese, often have an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia. Both type 2 diabetes and obesity are independent risk factors for CVD. Unfortunately, many therapies aimed at maintaining and improving glucose control are associated with weight gain. Among the older antidiabetes agents, most, including the insulin secretagogues and sensitizers, can lead to weight gain, except for metformin, which is weight-neutral. Among the newer agents, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors generally are weight-neutral in addition to lowering glucose, while the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists lead to weight reduction. Patients with type 2 diabetes are at an increased risk for both diabetes- and CV-related outcomes, and weight reduction is an important component of diabetes management. Weight gain in patients with type 2 diabetes can contribute to patient frustration and may negatively impact their compliance to therapeutic regimens. The selection of antidiabetes agents that not only improve glucose control but reduce or have a neutral effect on weight with beneficial effects on lipids are ideal options for managing patients with type 2 diabetes.

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: what is the evidence?

AIM

To systematically review the literature regarding insulin use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

METHODS

A Medline and Embase search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in English between 1 January 2000 and 1 April 2008, involving insulin therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The RCTs must comprise at least glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial plasma glucose and /or fasting blood glucose (FBG)) and hypoglycaemic events as outcome measurements.

RESULTS

The Pubmed search resulted in 943 hits; the Embase search gave 692 hits. A total of 116 RCTs were selected by title or abstract. Eventually 78 trials met the inclusion criteria. The studies were very diverse and of different quality. They comprised all possible insulin regimens with and without combination with oral medication. Continuing metformin and/or sulphonylurea after start of therapy with basal long-acting insulin results in better glycaemic control with less insulin requirements, less weight gain and less hypoglycaemic events. Long-acting insulin analogues in combination with oral medication are associated with similar glycaemic control but fewer hypoglycaemic episodes compared with NPH insulin. Most of the trials demonstrated better glycaemic control with premix insulin therapy than with a long-acting insulin once daily, but premix insulin causes more hypoglycaemic episodes. Analogue premix provides similar HbA1c, but lower postprandial glucose levels compared with human premix, without increase in hypoglycaemic events or weight gain. Drawing conclusions from the limited number of studies concerning basal-bolus regimen seems not possible. Some studies showed that rapid-acting insulin analogues frequently result in a better HbA1c or postprandial glucose without increase of hypoglycaemia than regular human insulin.

CONCLUSION

A once-daily basal insulin regimen added to oral medication is an ideal starting point. All next steps, from one to two or even more injections per day should be taken very carefully and in thorough deliberation with the patient, who has to comply with such a regimen for many years.

Ginseng on hyperglycemia: effects and mechanisms

It has been reported that American ginseng attenuates hyperglycemia and may present itself as a supplement to diabetes therapy. However, the lack of standardization in the usage of ginseng root leads to inconclusive results when applied to diabetes treatment. The mechanisms of American ginseng root in the treatment of diabetes remains a mystery. This greatly limits the effective utilization of American ginseng in facilitating diabetic therapy. Initiating studies have shown that American ginseng increases insulin production and reduces cell death in pancreatic β-cells. Also, studies have revealed American ginseng's ability to decrease blood glucose in type II diabetes patients as well as in streptozotocin-induced diabetic animals (STZ-diabetic mice). These data suggest that effects of ginseng in improving hyperglycemia may alter mitochondrial function as well as apoptosis cascades to ensure cell viability in pancreatic islet cells. This review briefly summarizes current knowledge of ginseng components and clinical studies related to diabetes. Further research will be needed to explore and identify the component(s) of ginseng, which may be responsible for the beneficial effects observed in animal studies which could then be extrapolated to human islets.