Improved glycaemic control with metformin-glibenclamide combined tablet therapy (Glucovance) in Type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled on metformin

Pharmacokinetic and Bioequivalence Studies of 2 Metformin Glibenclamide Tablets in Healthy Chinese Subjects Under Fasting and Fed Conditions

The rational combination of oral antidiabetic agents is more likely to provide better glycemic control than monotherapy. Metformin glibenclamide tablets can be used as second-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who cannot successfully control their blood glucose levels by diet and exercise plus metformin or sulfonylureas. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence and safety of metformin hydrochloride and glibenclamide tablets (500 mg/5 mg) prepared by 2 different vendors in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting and fed conditions. This is an open-label, single-center, randomized, 2-formulation, 2-period crossover study. After screening, 40 subjects were enrolled in the fasting trial, while 40 subjects were enrolled in the fed trial. Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to receive a monotherapy dose of 500 mg/5 mg of the test or reference formulation, and after a 1-week washout period, they took the alternative formulation. Blood samples were collected from 24 blood collection sites per cycle for pharmacokinetic analysis until 36 hours after oral administration. In total, 78 subjects completed the study. Under fasting and fed conditions, the geometric mean ratios of maximum plasma concentration, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to time of last quantifiable drug level , and AUC from time 0 to infinity between the 2 products, as well as the corresponding 90%CIs, were all within the range of 80%-125%. It was found that exposure (AUC from time 0 to infinity) to metformin is decreased by about 25% in the fed state compared to fasting, whereas glibenclamide exposure is increased by about 30% in the fed state. No severe adverse events were observed in the study.

The determination of the effect(s) of solute carrier family 22-member 2 (SLC22A2) haplotype variants on drug binding via molecular dynamic simulation systems

Single nucleotide polymorphisms detected in the solute carrier member family-22 has been shown to result in a variable response in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with Metformin. This study predicted a three-dimensional protein structure for the SLC22A2 protein sequence using AlphaFold 2 and modelled five haplotypes within SLC22A2 protein structure observed in the Xhosa population of South Africa. The protein models were used to determine the effect(s) of haplotype variations on the transport function of Metformin and 10 other drugs by the SLC22A2 protein. Molecular dynamic simulation studies, molecular docking and interaction analysis of the five SLC22A2 haplotypes were performed in complex with the ligand 5RE in a POPC lipid bilayer to understand the mechanism of drug binding. Weakest binding free energy was found between 5RE and haplotype 1. Molecular docking studies indicated the top binding ligands as well as Metformin to bind inside the transport channel in all haplotypes increasing the probability of Metformin inhibition during co-administration of drugs. Metformin showed reduced binding affinity and number of interactions compared to the top four binding molecules. Molecular dynamic simulation analysis indicated that haplotypes 1, 3 and 4 were less stable than 2 and 5. The findings suggest haplotypes 4 and 5 having stronger preference for large inhibitor molecule binding in the active site and this could result in haplotypes 4 and 5 demonstrating reduced Metformin clearance via the SLC22A2 transporter during co-administration of drugs. The current study is the first to investigate the potential effect(s) of haplotype variation on the protein structure of SLC22A2 to assess its ability to transport Metformin in an indigenous South African population.

Anti-Hyperglycemic Effects of Refined Fractions from Cyclocarya paliurus Leaves on Streptozotocin-Induced Diabetic Mice

To identify the chemical components responsible for the anti-hyperglycemic effect of Cyclocarya paliurus (Batal.) Iljinsk (Juglandaceae) leaves, an ethanol extract (CPE) and a water extract (CPW) of C. paliurus leaves, as well as their total flavonoids (CPF), triterpenoids (CPT) and crude polysaccharides (CPP), were prepared and assessed on streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic mice. After being orally administrated once a day for 24 days, CPF (300 mg/kg), CPP (180 mg/kg), or CPF+CPP (300 mg/kg CPF + 180 mg/kg CPP) treatment reversed STZ-induced body weight and muscle mass losses. The glucose tolerance tests and insulin tolerance tests suggested that CPF, CPP, and CPF+CPP showed anti-hyperglycemic effect in STZ-induced diabetic mice. Furthermore, CPF enhances glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in MIN6 cells and insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in C2C12 myotubes. CPF and CPP suppressed inflammatory cytokine levels in STZ-induced diabetic mice. Additionally, CPF and CPP improved STZ-induced diabetic nephropathy assessed by H&E staining, blood urea nitrogen content, and urine creatinine level. The molecular networking and Emperor analysis results indicated that CPF showed potential anti-hyperglycemic effects, and HPLC–MS/MS analysis indicated that CPF contains 3 phenolic acids and 9 flavonoids. In contrast, CPT (650 mg/kg) and CPC (300 mg/kg CPF + 180 mg/kg CPP + 650 mg/kg CPT) did not show anti-hyperglycemic effect. Taken together, polysaccharides and flavonoids are responsible for the anti-hyperglycemic effect of C. paliurus leaves, and the clinical application of C. paliurus need to be refined.

Symptomatic Hypoglycemia After Gastric Bypass: Incidence and Predictive Factors in a Cohort of 1,138 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

After Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), postprandial hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (PPHH) is particularly critical because of the risk of trauma. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and identify risk factors for symptomatic PPHH.

METHODS

Patients with RYGB were classified into moderate PPHH (MH) or severe hypoglycemia (SH), which is defined as patients with neuroglycopenic symptoms. Logistic multivariate linear regressions were performed to identify predictive factors for symptomatic PPHH and more specifically for SH with neuroglycopenic symptoms. Patients with diabetes and those with a follow-up shorter than 2 years were excluded.

RESULTS

Among the 1,138 patients, 44.2% had at least one episode of hypoglycemia with a mean delay of 25.5 (21.3) months, 32.6% had MH, and 11.6% had SH. The annual incidence rate of SH was 2.5% the first year, 3.7% the second year, and 1.5% the third year. Independent predictive factors for higher risk of SH were: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01; 95% CI: 1.05-16.69; P = 0.0007), lower BMI after RYGB (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.17-2.22; P = 0.0035), and maximal weight loss (OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.39-1.23; P = 0.0106), whereas higher preoperative BMI was protective (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0112).

CONCLUSIONS

This observational cohort study showed that the incidence of severe PPHH with neuroglycopenic symptoms after RYGB was higher than expected.

Biguanides: Species with versatile therapeutic applications

Biguanides are compounds in which two guanidine moieties are fused to form a highly conjugated system. Biguanides are highly basic and hence they are available as salts mostly hydrochloride salts, these cationic species have been found to exhibit many therapeutic properties. This review covers the research and development carried out on biguanides and accounts the various therapeutic applications of drugs containing biguanide group-such as antimalarial, antidiabetic, antiviral, anticancer, antibacterial, antifungal, anti-tubercular, antifilarial, anti-HIV, as well as other biological activities. The aim of this review is to compile all the medicinal chemistry applications of this class of compounds so as to pave way for the accelerated efforts in finding the drug action mechanisms associated with this class of compounds. Importance has been given to the organic chemistry of these biguanide derivatives also.

Mechanisms and Characteristics of Sulfonylureas and Glinides

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex progressive endocrine disease characterized by hyperglycemia and life-threatening complications. It is the most common disorder of pancreatic cell function that causes insulin deficiency. Sulfonylurea is a class of oral hypoglycemic drugs. Over the past half century, these drugs, together with the subsequent non-sulfonylureas (glinides), have been the main oral drugs for insulin secretion.

OBJECTIVE

Through in-depth study, the medical profession considers it as an important drug for improving blood sugar control.

METHODS

The mechanism, characteristics, efficacy and side effects of sulfonylureas and glinides were reviewed in detail.

RESULTS

Sulfonylureas and glinides not only stimulated the release of insulin from pancreatic cells, but also had many extrapanular hypoglycemic effect, such as reducing the clearance rate of insulin in liver, reducing the secretion of glucagon, and enhancing the sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

Sulfonylureas and glinides are effective first-line drugs for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Although they have the risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain and cardiovascular disease, their clinical practicability and safety can be guaranteed as long as they are reasonably used.

A comparison study on efficacy, insulin sensitivity and safety of Glimepiride/Metformin fixed dose combination versus glimepiride single therapy on type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with basal insulin therapy

AIM

The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy, insulin sensitivity and safety in the event of administering sulfonylurea-based drugs and metformin in combination with basal insulin.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, parallel, 16-week trial was conducted across four study centers. The 97 type 2 diabetic patients were selected and randomized into two groups, the insulin glargine plus fixed-dose combination glimepiride 1 mg and metformin 500 mg twice daily group (the G/M group) and the insulin glargine plus glimepiride 4 mg once daily group (the G group). The primary endpoint evaluated was change in HbA1c. The secondary endpoints evaluated were changes in fasting blood glucose (FPG), 2-h post prandial glucose (PPG 2 h), insulin, and C-peptide levels.

RESULTS

The G/M group was found to have experienced a significantly greater decrease in HbA1c, as well as PPG 2 h compared to the G group. While no significant intergroup difference was found regarding FPG in the ITT, the G/M group in the PP set experienced a significantly greater decrease in FPG.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of combined therapy consisting of either the G/M group or the G group indicated that both forms of therapy are relatively safe but that the former more effectively decreases blood glucose levels.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Phytochemical screening and preliminary clinical trials of the aqueous extract mixture of Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall. ex Nees and Syzygium polyanthum (Wight.) Walp leaves in metformin treated patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Our previous preclinical study showed that the extract mixture (EM) of Andrographis paniculata (Burm. f.) Wall. ex Nees (AP) and Syzygium polyanthum (Wight.) Walp (SP) leaves had antidiabetic effects and were beneficial on alloxan-induced diabetic rats.

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to: 1) identify the phytochemical compounds present in aqueous extract of AP and SP and 2) examine the benefits of the EM of AP and SP leaves in lowering blood glucose in the presence of standard antidiabetic treatment using metformin in type 2 diabetic patients in Indonesian Traditional Medicine Polyclinic of Dr. Soetomo General Hospital in Surabaya.

METHODS

Phytochemical analysis of aqueous leaf extract of AP and SP was performed using standard chemical tests, TLC, and GC-MS. Furthermore, a total of 54 subjects with T2DM participated in this study and were randomly assigned to either the intervention group supplemented with the extract mixture of AP and SP at a dose 900  mg/day for 8 weeks, or the control group which received placebo tablets in a randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded parallel clinical trial. Both groups received metformin at dose 1000  mg/day. Body weight, blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, postprandial glucose, haemoglobin A1c, triglycerides, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein, high density lipoprotein, and markers of liver and kidney damage were measured.

RESULTS

The results of phytochemical analysis showed that the glycosides, terpenoids, alkaloids, flavonoids, saponins, and tannins were found to be present in the extract mixture. GC-MS analyses of AP and SP showed the presence of 19 and 12 peaks, respectively. Methyl ester of 9-octadecenoic and eicosanoic acid were determined as the main constituents of both species. Moreover, the results of clinical study suggested that the extract mixture improved the decrease of fasting blood glucose and postprandial glucose, significantly lowered body mass index compared with the control group. The EM appeared beneficial for SGPT values and uric acid levels.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results of this study suggested the potential beneficial effects of the extract mixture for use as complementary medicine alongside conventional treatment of metformin. The extract mixture contained many highly potent compounds for treating T2DM and preventing short- and long-term risk complications of diabetes.

Adequacy of clinical trial evidence of metformin fixed-dose combinations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in India

There is growing national and international concern about the drug regulatory system in India. Parliamentary reports have highlighted the presence of high numbers of unapproved medicines and irrational combinations of both approved and unapproved drugs in the Indian market-place. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are a peculiar feature of the Indian pharmaceutical landscape. Although metformin is a first-line treatment, FDCs for diabetes in India account for two-thirds of all diabetes medicine sales, and some have not been approved by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). This study examines the basis of efficacy and safety of top-selling metformin FDCs in India against four WHO criteria from clinical trials guidelines for the approval of FDCs. Data from a commercial drug sales database (PharmaTrac) were combined with searches through published literature, clinical trial registries, and published and unpublished trial websites of metformin FDCs in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Five metformin FDCs in India from November 2011 to October 2012 accounted for 80% of all metformin FDC sales by value and volume. Although all five had obtained CDSCO approval, three had been sold and marketed prior to receiving this approval. Evaluation of published and unpublished clinical trials of these five FDCs found none provided robust evidence of safety and efficacy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Recommendations are made for publishing evidence that underpins drug approvals, marketing bans, greater transparency through updated clinical trials databases and legislative reform in order to prevent irrational FDCs from entering the market.

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.

Glibenclamide and metfoRmin versus stAndard care in gEstational diabeteS (GRACES): a feasibility open label randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Metformin is widely used to treat gestational diabetes (GDM), but many women remain hyperglycaemic and require additional therapy. We aimed to determine recruitment rate and participant throughput in a randomised trial of glibenclamide compared with standard therapy insulin (added to maximum tolerated metformin) for treatment of GDM.

METHODS

We conducted an open label feasibility study in 5 UK antenatal clinics among pregnant women 16 to 36 weeks' gestation with metformin-treated GDM. Women failing to achieve adequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy were randomised to additional glibenclamide or insulin. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. We explored feasibility with uptake, retention, adherence, safety, glycaemic control, participant satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Records of 197 women were screened and 23 women randomised to metformin and glibenclamide (n = 13) or metformin and insulin (n = 10). Mean (SD) recruitment rate was 0.39 (0.62) women/centre/month. 9/13 (69.2%, 95%CI 38.6-90.9%) women adhered to glibenclamide and all provided outcome data (100% retention). There were no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, but metformin and insulin gave superior glycaemic control to metformin and glibenclamide, with fewer blood glucose readings <3.5 mmol/l (median [IQR] difference/woman/week of treatment 0.58 [0.03-1.87]).

CONCLUSIONS

A large randomised controlled trial comparing glibenclamide or insulin in combination with metformin for women with GDM would be feasible but is unlikely to be worthwhile, given the poorer glycaemic control with glibenclamide and metformin in this pilot study. The combination of metformin and glibenclamide should be reserved for women with GDM with true needle phobia or inability to use insulin therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov registration number:NCT02080377 February 11th 2014.

Hypoglycemia: a review of definitions used in clinical trials evaluating antihyperglycemic drugs for diabetes

Objective

To understand the severity and potential impact of heterogeneity in definitions of hypoglycemia used in diabetes research, we aimed to review the hypoglycemia definitions adopted in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We reviewed 109 RCTs included in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health reports for the second- and third-line therapy for the patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Results

Nearly 60% (n=66) of the studies reviewed presented the definitions for overall hypoglycemia, and another 20% (n=22) of the studies reported the results for hypoglycemia but did not report a definition. Among these 66 studies, only 9 (14%) followed the American Diabetes Association/European Medicines Agency specified guidelines to define hypoglycemia, with an exact threshold of plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L. Fifty-two of the 66 studies (79%) used a threshold considerably lower than the recommended ≤3.9 mmol/L, and 16 studies used a threshold between 3.8 and 4.0 mmol/L. The proportion of the trials that used a cutoff value of <3.1 mmol/L appeared to be slightly similar among the more commonly used non-insulin treatments, GLP-1s (7 of 18 [39%]), thiazolidinediones (TZDs; 6 of 11 [55%]), DPP-4s (12 of 19 [64%]), and sulfonylureas (11 of 20 [55%]). Among trials with intermediate-long-acting insulins (neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, detemir, glargine), 7 of 26 trials (27%) used a cutoff of <3.1 mmol/L. The definition of severe hypoglycemia was also subject to substantial heterogeneity, in both the utilized threshold and accompanying soft definitions.

Conclusion

This review demonstrates that substantial heterogeneity exists in the definition of overall, severe/major, and nocturnal hypoglycemia across RCTs investigating T2D interventions.

Addition of sulphonylurea to metformin does not relevantly change body weight: a prospective observational cohort study (ZODIAC-39)

AIM

To investigate changes in body weight trajectories after the addition of individual sulphonylureas (SUs) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, in a primary care setting in the Netherlands. Patients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes who were included in the ZODIAC cohort between 1998 and 2012 and who received metformin monotherapy at inclusion (n = 29 195), and had used metformin as monotherapy for at least 1 year before receiving dual therapy through the addition of an SU for at least 1 year were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was within-drug yearly change in body weight after receiving add-on therapy with individual SUs during 5 years of follow-up. The secondary outcome was within-drug yearly change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Annual changes in weight and HbA1c were estimated with linear mixed models, adjusted for age, gender and diabetes duration.

RESULTS

A total of 2958 patients were included. No significant weight changes were observed within and between any of the individual SUs after treatment intensification (p = 0.24). In addition, no significant difference in weight between the add-on therapy combinations was observed (p = 0.26). The average HbA1c the year before intensification was 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) and dropped below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) the year after.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes treated in primary care, strict glycaemic control can be maintained with SUs used as add-on therapy to metformin, without the offset of relevant weight changes.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

Synchronized and controlled release of metformin hydrochloride/glipizide from elementary osmotic delivery

The combination of metformin hydrochloride (MTF) and glipizide (GLZ) is second-line medication for diabetes mellitus type 2 (DMT2). In the present study, elementary osmotic pump ( EOP) tablet is designed to deliver the combination of MTF and GLZ in a sustained and synchronized manner. By analyzing different variables of the formulation, sodium hydrogen carbonate is introduced as pH modifier to improve the release of GLZ, while ethyl cellulose acts as release retardant to reduce the burst release phase of MTF. A two-factor, three-level face-centered central composite design (FCCD) is applied to investigate the impact of different factors on drug release profile. Compared with conventional tablets, the EOP tablet demonstrates a controlled release behavior with relative bioavailability of 99.2% for MTF and 99.3% for GLZ. Data also shows EOP tablet is able to release MTF and GLZ in a synchronized and sustained manner both in vitro and in vivo.

Effects of sulfonylureas on lipids in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies suggested that dyslipidemia was potentially associated with anti-diabetic medications of sulfonylureas (SUs). The results were, however, inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of SUs on the level of lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for RCTs that addressed the effects of second- and/or third-generation SUs used in T2DM patients on lipids profiles with study duration of at least 12 weeks. Two reviewers independently screened literature, collected data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. The meta-analysis was performed by using the RevMan5.1 software.

RESULTS

A total of 59 RCTs were included, of which 52 were included for final meta-analysis. The results suggested that SUs statistically increased the levels of FFA (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.42) and TG (MD = 0.06, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.10), but decreased HDL-C (MD = -0.07, 95%CI -0.11 to -0.04) and LDL-C (MD = -0.11, 95%CI -0.17 to -0.04); but the SUs had no effect on TC (MD = 0.01, 95%CI -0.05 to 0.08), ApoA1 (MD = 0.01, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.04), and Apo B (MD = -0.01, 95%CI -0.05 to 0.03). When compared to metformin, SUs could increase TC and LDL-C; compared to glinides, SUs increased TC and lowered HDL-C; compared to thiazolidinediones, SUs reduced TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, and increase TG.

CONCLUSIONS

SUs have a small effect on lipids, although they may statistically increase the level of FFA and TG, and decrease LDL-C and HDL-C.

The effects of sulfonylureas plus metformin on lipids, blood pressure, and adverse events in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To compare the effects of sulfonylureas and metformin versus metformin on lipid profiles, blood pressure, and adverse events. PubMed, EMbase, Chinese BioMedical Literature on disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and Wanfang database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), from inception to August 2012. Key outcomes were low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), blood pressure (BP), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting insulin, and adverse events. Twenty RCTs were included in the analysis. Compared to metformin, the combination therapy of sulfonylureas and metformin slightly reduced HDL-C [-0.03, 95 % CI (-0.06, -0.01)] and HbA1c (-0.79, 95 % CI -0.96 to -0.63). However, it showed little effects on LDL-C, TG, TC, and BP. Glipizide plus metformin significantly increased fasting insulin [2.33, 95 % CI (1.94, 2.73)]. Hypoglycemia and nervous system side events were more frequent among patients treated with sulfonylureas plus metformin than metformin alone (RR = 6.79, 95 % CI 3.79-12.17; RR = 1.27, 95 % CI 1.03-1.57; respectively), but less in digestive symptoms (RR = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.67-0.84). Combination therapy with sulfonylureas and metformin may be more effective than metformin alone in improving HbA1c and reducing gastrointestinal reactions. But it had disadvantage of decreasing HDL-C, increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and nervous system side events.

Efficacy and safety of glimepiride/metformin sustained release once daily vs. glimepiride/metformin twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

The study investigated the clinical equivalence in reducing haemoglobin A1c (A1C) between glimepiride/metformin sustained release (GM-SR) 2/500 mg, a fixed-dose combination, once daily and glimepiride/metformin (GM) 1/250 mg, a fixed-dose combination, twice daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study was conducted in 14 hospitals in Korea. Inclusion criteria were age 30-75 years, T2D diagnosis no longer than 10 years previously, A1C between 7% and 10%, and body mass index <40 kg/m(2) . A total of 207 subjects were randomised into the GM-SR group (n=101) or the GM group (n=106). Participants were assessed at baseline, 8 weeks and 16 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

After 16 weeks treatment, no difference in baseline-adjusted changes of A1C (primary efficacy variable) was observed between the two groups (-0.59% for GM-SR group vs. -0.61% for GM group, 95% CI: -0.17 to 0.21; p=0.84). In addition, there were no significant differences in secondary efficacy parameters between the two groups, including changes in A1C up to week 8, changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h-postprandial plasma glucose up to week 8 and week 16, response rate, drug compliance and hypoglycaemic events. However, there was a difference in baseline-adjusted changes of FPG between the two groups (-1.01 mmol/l for GM-SR group vs. -1.52 mmol/l for GM group, p=0.01 in the intention to treat set).

CONCLUSIONS

GM-SR 2/500 mg once daily was as effective as GM 1/250 mg twice daily in lowering A1C. In addition, no difference was noted in hypoglycaemic events between the two groups.

Metformin and its clinical use: new insights for an old drug in clinical practice

Metformin is generally recommended as first-line treatment in type 2 diabetes, especially in overweight patients, but in recent years new indications for its use have emerged. Metformin has been found to be safe and efficacious both as monotherapy and in combination with all oral antidiabetic agents and insulins. If metformin use during pregnancy and the lactation period is supported by few data, it could be indicated for women with polycystic ovary syndrome, since it could diminish circulating androgens and insulin resistance, thus ameliorating the ovulation rate. Metformin seems to reduce cancer risk, which appears to be increased in diabetics, and is a promising agent for oncoprevention and chemotherapy combinations. Moreover, metformin could find a place in the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Lactic acidosis could be decreased by avoiding metformin use in patients with hypovolemia, sepsis, renal impairment, hypoxic respiratory diseases and heart failure, in the preoperative period and before intravenous injection of contrast media.

Combination of glibenclamide-metformin HCl for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Combination of glibenclamide (glyburide in the U.S.) and metformin hydrochloride simultaneously addresses two different but complimentary mechanisms to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

The pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and side effect profile of the oral combination of glibenclamide-metformin are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Those patients, uncontrolled with single oral agent sulfonylurea or metformin alone, benefit from combination glibenclamide-metformin. There is improvement in fasting plasma glucose, HbA(1C), and post-prandial glucose control, and patients are more likely to achieve a HbA(1C) < 7%. Initiation should be started at the lowest doses and titrated to get the desired effect. Combination therapy allows for reduced pill burden while treating a multifactorial disease by two different mechanisms. Practitioners should be cognizant of risks of hypoglycemia and the theoretical potential for lactic acidosis in the elderly and those with renal impairment. We caution the use of glibenclamide-metformin in patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. Therapy should be individualized, but overall, combination of glibenclamide-metformin should be considered in patients, without renal or cardiovascular impairment, who are not controlled on monotherapy alone. Alternatively, practitioners may want to weigh the efficacy and safety of available dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor-metformin combinations to those of glibenclamide-metformin when considering combination therapy.

Cost-effectiveness study of oral hypoglycemic agents in the treatment of outpatients with type 2 diabetes attending a public primary care clinic in Mexico City

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, diabetes mellitus presents a high burden for individuals and society. In Latin America, many people with diabetes have limited access to health care, which means that indirect costs may exceed direct health care cost. Diabetes is Mexico's leading cause of death.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness ratios of the most used oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) in the treatment of outpatients with type 2 diabetes attending a public primary care clinic in Mexico City.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional and analytic study was conducted in Mexico City.

METHODOLOGY

Twenty-seven adult outpatients with type 2 diabetes who were treated either with metformin or glibenclamide were included. Acarbose was used as an alternative strategy. The study was carried out from the perspective of Mexican society. Direct medical and nonmedical costs as well as indirect costs were evaluated using a structured questionnaire. Efficacies of all drug treatments were evaluated retrospectively. A systematic search was conducted to select published randomized clinical trials based on predetermined inclusion criteria, and treatment success was defined as glycosylated hemoglobin factor ≤ 7%. Efficacy data of each drug and/or combination were analyzed using meta-analysis. The Monte Carlo Markov model was used. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were used as the unit of effectiveness; incremental and sensitive analyses were performed and a 5% discount rate was calculated. A hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients was modeled.

RESULTS

The odds ratios of the success of each drug treatment were obtained from the meta-analyses, and were the following: 5.82 (glibenclamide), 3.86 (metformin), 3.5 (acarbose), and 6.76 (metformin-glibenclamide). The cost-effectiveness ratios found were US$272.63/QALY (glibenclamide), US$296.48/QALY (metformin), and US$409.86/QALY (acarbose). Sensitivity analysis did not show changes for the most cost-effective therapy when the effectiveness probabilities or treatment costs were modified.

CONCLUSION

Glibenclamide is the most cost-effective treatment for the present study outpatient population diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the early stages.

Adherence to oral antidiabetic agents with pioglitazone and metformin: comparison of fixed-dose combination therapy with monotherapy and loose-dose combination therapy

BACKGROUND

Several studies have examined adherence when switching from loose-dose combination therapy (LDCT) to fixed-dose combination therapy (FDCT) among oral antidiabetic agents. However, little is known regarding combination therapies, including pioglitazone and metformin.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were (1) to describe adherence to monotherapy (MT), LDCT, and FDCT of oral diabetic agents containing pioglitazone and metformin; (2) to determine whether there are differences in the medication adherence of patients switching from MT or LDCT to the corresponding FDCT, while controlling for covariates; and (3) to determine whether there are differences in medication costs between LDCT and the analogous FDCT.

METHODS

This retrospective database study included continuously enrolled Texas Medicaid recipients (18-65 years) who were prescribed FDCT with pioglitazone and metformin in the postindex period and prescribed the analogous LDCT or MT in the preindex period. Prescription claims were extracted from August 1, 2004, to August 31, 2007. Medication possession ratio (MPR) was used to measure medication adherence, and medication costs were assessed using reimbursement amount to dispensing pharmacies. Descriptive statistics, paired t tests, χ(2) tests, and logistic regression analyses were employed to address the study objectives.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 270) were on average (mean [SD]) 50.7 (9.7) years of age, and the majority were female (73.3%). Overall adherence to FDCT was 80.5 (19.7). Regarding patients who switched from LDCT (n = 60) to FDCT, adherence increased significantly (P = 0.0081) by 8.9% (76.0 [16.8] to 82.8 [18.2]), whereas those who switched from MT (n = 210) to FDCT had a 9% significant (P < 0.0001) decrease in adherence (87.7 [16.7] to 79.8 [20.1]). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that compared with those who were adherent (MPR ≥80) in the preindex period, those who were not adherent (MPR < 80) were 56% less likely to be adherent with FDCT in the postindex period. Medicaid reimbursement for FDCT was $0.26 less (9%) per tablet than that for LDCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Although switching from MT to FDCT resulted in decreased adherence, switching to the analogous FDCT for selected patients who were prescribed LDCT with pioglitazone and metformin resulted in a 9% decrease in medication cost and a 9% increase in adherence. Caution should be used when generalizing the study results to different FDCT combinations and other payers.

Second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although there is general agreement that metformin should be used as first-line pharmacotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, uncertainty remains regarding the choice of second-line therapy once metformin is no longer effective. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of all available classes of antihyperglycemic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from 1980 to October 2009. Additional citations were obtained from grey literature and conference proceedings and through stakeholder feedback. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Key outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c, body weight, hypoglycemia, quality of life, long-term diabetes-related complications, serious adverse drug events and mortality. Mixed-treatment comparison and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to pool trial results, when appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 49 active and non-active controlled randomized trials that compared 2 or more of the following classes of antihyperglycemic agents and weight-loss agents: sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, insulins, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sibutramine and orlistat. All classes of second-line antihyperglycemic therapies achieved clinically meaningful reductions in hemoglobin A1c (0.6% to 1.0%). No significant differences were found between classes. Insulins and insulin secretagogues were associated with significantly more events of overall hypoglycemia than the other agents, but severe hypoglycemia was rarely observed. An increase in body weight was observed with the majority of second-line therapies (1.8 to 3.0 kg), the exceptions being DPP-4 inhibitors, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues (0.6 to -1.8 kg). There were insufficient data available for diabetes complications, mortality or quality of life.

INTERPRETATION

DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues achieved improvements in glycemic control similar to those of other second-line therapies, although they may have modest benefits in terms of weight gain and overall hypoglycemia. Further long-term trials of adequate power are required to determine whether newer drug classes differ from older agents in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes.

Comparative evaluation of incretin-based antidiabetic medications and alternative therapies to be added to metformin in the case of monotherapy failure

Aims/Introduction:  To compare clinical consequences of using inretin-based medications versus conventional antidiabetic agents as add-on to metformin in case of monotherapy failure in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  The medical literature including recent abstracts from international diabetes conferences was searched for reports from clinical trials with incretin mimetics (GLP-1 receptor agonists), inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4, incretin enhancers) and conventional antidiabtic drugs coadministered with metformin after monotherapy failure. A scoring system is suggested to compare the clinical utility of using incretin-based versus conventional antidiabetic agents in this situation.

RESULTS

  Incretin mimetics and DPP-4 inhibitors on top of metformin treatment help achieve glycaemic control comparable to other efficient antidiabetic drugs, both if separate or head-to-head trials were considered. Incretin-based antidiabetic drugs did not cause hypoglycaemia (different from sulfonylureas, meglitinides and insulin) and weight gain (different from sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, and insulin). DPP-4 inhibitors were weight neutral, incretin mimetics lead to weight loss. The clinical profile of incretin-based medications received the highest scores, followed by α-glucosidase inhibitors, with far lower scores assigned to insulin, glitazones, and sulfonyureas (in this order).

CONCLUSIONS

  Based on the results from clinical trials, incretin-based medications have been shown to be efficacious antidiabetic drugs with a favourable adverse event and tolerability profile. This leads to high scores using a novel system paying attention to multiple facets contributing to the selection of antidiabetic drugs for general recommendation and individual treatment choices.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent that has been shown to reduce total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic agents, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and has been considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis, and to evaluate blood lactate levels, for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search was performed of electronic databases to identify studies of metformin treatment. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials and observational cohort studies in patients with type 2 diabetes of least one month duration were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for non-metformin treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases was calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed-effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 347 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 70,490 patient-years of metformin use or in 55,451 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis per 100,000 patient-years was 4.3 cases in the metformin group and 5.4 cases in the non-metformin group. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to non-metformin therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with orally administered agents: advances in combination therapy

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the effects and clinical benefit provided by combining various orally administered antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and to examine the advantages of single-tablet combinations with respect to targeting hyperglycemia and adherence.

METHODS

A review of randomized controlled trials that studied OAD combinations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes was conducted by using search terms in PubMed.

RESULTS

Reported data have documented that OAD combination therapies have additional benefits over monotherapy in terms of glycemic efficacy. Results from randomized controlled trials on a range of OAD combinations have demonstrated differences in safety and efficacy. The use of single-tablet OAD combinations has been shown to improve adherence in patients.

CONCLUSION

The development of single-tablet OAD combinations that can address all aspects of glycemia with a favorable tolerability profile has the potential to help patients manage their glycemic control more effectively and to minimize the risk of long-term diabetes-related complications. In addition, single-tablet combinations of agents offer improved convenience for patients as well as potential cost benefits. Thus, they represent an important treatment option for type 2 diabetes.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent that has been shown to reduce total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic agents, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and has been considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis, and to evaluate blood lactate levels, for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search was performed of electronic databases to identify studies of metformin treatment. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials and observational cohort studies in patients with type 2 diabetes of least one month duration were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for non-metformin treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases was calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed-effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 347 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 70,490 patient-years of metformin use or in 55,451 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis per 100,000 patient-years was 4.3 cases in the metformin group and 5.4 cases in the non-metformin group. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to non-metformin therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments.

Metformin therapy and clinical uses

Metformin is now established as a first-line antidiabetic therapy for the management of type 2 diabetes. Its early use in treatment algorithms is supported by lack of weight gain, low risk of hypoglycaemia and its mode of action to counter insulin resistance. The drug's anti-atherosclerotic and cardioprotective effects have recently been confirmed in prospective and retrospective studies, and appear to reflect a collection of glucose-independent effects on the vascular endothelium, suppressant effects on glycation, oxidative stress and formation of adhesion molecules, stimulation of fibrinolysis and favourable effects on the lipid profile. Although avoidance of troublesome gastrointestinal tolerability issues requires careful dose titration, the risk of serious adverse events is considered low provided that contra-indications (especially with respect to renal function) are observed. As many of its actions go beyond glucose lowering, emerging evidence indicates potential benefits in other insulin-resistant states and possibly tumour suppression.

Performing meta-analysis with incomplete statistical information in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Results from clinical trials are usually summarized in the form of sampling distributions. When full information (mean, SEM) about these distributions is given, performing meta-analysis is straightforward. However, when some of the sampling distributions only have mean values, a challenging issue is to decide how to use such distributions in meta-analysis. Currently, the most common approaches are either ignoring such trials or for each trial with a missing SEM, finding a similar trial and taking its SEM value as the missing SEM. Both approaches have drawbacks. As an alternative, this paper develops and tests two new methods, the first being the prognostic method and the second being the interval method, to estimate any missing SEMs from a set of sampling distributions with full information. A merging method is also proposed to handle clinical trials with partial information to simulate meta-analysis.

METHODS

Both of our methods use the assumption that the samples for which the sampling distributions will be merged are randomly selected from the same population. In the prognostic method, we predict the missing SEMs from the given SEMs. In the interval method, we define intervals that we believe will contain the missing SEMs and then we use these intervals in the merging process.

RESULTS

Two sets of clinical trials are used to verify our methods. One family of trials is on comparing different drugs for reduction of low density lipprotein cholesterol (LDL) for Type-2 diabetes, and the other is about the effectiveness of drugs for lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). Both methods are shown to be useful for approximating the conventional meta-analysis including trials with incomplete information. For example, the meta-analysis result of Latanoprost versus Timolol on IOP reduction for six months provided in 1 was 5.05 +/- 1.15 (Mean +/- SEM) with full information. If the last trial in this study is assumed to be with partial information, the traditional analysis method for dealing with incomplete information that ignores this trial would give 6.49 +/- 1.36 while our prognostic method gives 5.02 +/- 1.15, and our interval method provides two intervals as Mean in [4.25, 5.63] and SEM in [1.01, 1.24].

CONCLUSION

Both the prognostic and the interval methods are useful alternatives for dealing with missing data in meta-analysis. We recommend clinicians to use the prognostic method to predict the missing SEMs in order to perform meta-analysis and the interval method for obtaining a more cautious result.

Glycaemic control and adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin + sulphonylurea: a meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of a sulphonylurea on glycaemic control and the risk adverse events when incorporated into the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials of sulphonylurea therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was inadequate after maximal treatment with metformin. Data on reductions in haemoglobin A(1C) (HbA(1C)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and risk of hypoglycaemic events were extracted from each study and pooled in meta-analyses. Data on weight change were also extracted and tabulated.

RESULTS

Six studies including 1364 patients were identified. Based on random effects meta-analysis, the pooled estimate of change in HbA(1C) from baseline was 0.9% (95% CI 0.7-1.1, p = 0.00011 vs. baseline) and for change in FPG from baseline was 1.8 mmol/l (95% CI 1.1-2.5, p = 0.0026 vs. baseline). The odds of experiencing a hypoglycaemic event was significantly higher in sulphonylurea-treated patients than in those on comparator treatments (OR = 5.3, 95% CI 1.7-16.3, p = 0.03). Mean weight change ranged from +2.5 to -0.1 kg, depending on the comparator treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis has demonstrated that, in patients with type 2 diabetes whose control is inadequate on metformin monotherapy, the magnitude of incremental HbA(1C) reduction achieved by the addition of a sulphonylurea is unlikely to exceed 1%, even after titration to maximum tolerated doses. Additionally, clinically relevant side-effects such as symptomatic hypoglycaemia and weight gain may be experienced.

Comparison of different drugs as add-on treatments to metformin in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Metformin is recommended as first-line treatment in type 2 diabetic patients. Several agents can be used as add-on treatments in metformin monotherapy failure. Most available clinical trials on the hypoglycemic efficacy of different drugs were performed either in monotherapy or in combination with agents other than metformin. Aim of the present meta-analysis is to collect available information on the efficacy of different hypoglycemic drugs, in combination with metformin, in patients failing to metformin, or to other oral monotherapies.

METHODS

An extensive Medline search, together with manual search of references from retrieved articles, was performed to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy on HbA1c of different agents, compared with placebo or with other active drugs, in combination with metformin, in patients failing to oral hypoglycemic therapy. HbA1c reduction at 16-36 months was considered for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 clinical trials were retrieved. Combining the results of different placebo-controlled trials, sulphonylureas, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and thiazolidinediones induced a reduction [95%CI] of HbA1c of 0.85 [0.78; 0.94], 0.61 [0.55; 0.67], 0.42 [0.40; 0.44]%, respectively. In direct comparisons, sulphonylureas induced a greater reduction of HbA1c (of 0.17 [0.16; 0.18]%) than thiazolidinediones, and had a similar effect as insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with metformin, sulphonylureas and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors show a similar efficacy on HbA1c. The effects of drugs used as add-on to metformin monotherapy could be different from those observed in monotherapy.

Effect of glyburide-metformin combination tablet in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of glyburide/metformin combined tablet compared to glyburide or metformin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 16-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 4-arm and parallel clinical trial study, 100 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited and 76 patients were available for statistical analysis at the end of the study. After 1 week of placebo washout period, eligible patients were randomly assigned into 1 of 4 treatment groups: glyburide 5 mg b.i.d.; metformin 500 mg b.i.d.; glyburide/metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg b.i.d.; or glyburide/metformin 5.0 mg/500 mg b.i.d. The doses were titrated every 2 weeks to a maximum of 4 tablets per day if the patients fasting plasma glucose (FPG) still exceeded 140 mg/dL. Efficacy was evaluated by the changes from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and FPG at week 16. Adverse events were recorded and summarized by treatment group.

RESULTS

At week 16, patients who received glyburide/metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg or 5.0 mg/500 mg tablets had greater reductions in FPG (all p<0.001) compared with glyburide or metformin monotherapy. Patients who took glyburide/ metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg tablet and glyburide/metformin 5.0 mg/500 mg tablet had significant decreases in HbA1c (both p<0.0125). Furthermore, treatment with glyburide/metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg resulted in significantly greater reduction in HbA1c compared to glyburide or metformin (-1.77%, p<0.001 and -1.34%, p=0.002), and treatment with glyburide/metformin 5.0 mg/500 mg resulted in significant lowering of HbA1c compared to glyburide or metformin alone (-1.73%, p<0.001 and -1.30%, p=0.005). Both the glyburide/metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg and glyburide/metformin 5.0 mg/500 mg combination therapy groups experienced fewer gastrointestinal adverse events than the metformin monotherapy group.

CONCLUSION

Both glyburide/metformin 2.5 mg/500 mg and glyburide/metformin 5.0 mg/500 mg combination therapy were efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Drug interactions of clinical importance with antihyperglycaemic agents: an update

Because management of type 2 diabetes mellitus usually involves combined pharmacological therapy to obtain adequate glucose control and treatment of concurrent pathologies (especially dyslipidaemia and arterial hypertension), drug-drug interactions must be carefully considered with antihyperglycaemic drugs. Additive glucose-lowering effects have been extensively reported when combining sulphonylureas (or the new insulin secretagogues, meglitinide derivatives, i.e. nateglinide and repaglinide) with metformin, sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives) with thiazolidinediones (also called glitazones) and the biguanide compound metformin with thiazolidinediones. Interest in combining alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with either sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives), metformin or thiazolidinediones has also been demonstrated. These combinations result in lower glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting glucose and postprandial glucose levels than with either monotherapy. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interferences have been reported with some combinations, they do not appear to have important clinical consequences. No significant adverse effects, except a higher risk of hypoglycaemic episodes that may be attributed to better glycaemic control, occur with any combination. Challenging the classical dual therapy with sulphonylurea plus metformin, there is a recent trend to use alternative dual combinations (sulphonylurea plus thiazolidinedione or metformin plus thiazolidinedione). In addition, triple therapy with the addition of a thiazolidinedione to the metformin-sulphonylurea combination has been recently evaluated and allows glucose targets to be reached before insulin therapy is considered. This triple therapy appears to be safe, with no deleterious drug-drug interactions being reported so far.Potential interferences may also occur between glucose-lowering agents and other drugs, and such drug-drug interactions may have important clinical implications. Relevant pharmacological agents are those that are widely coadministered in diabetic patients (e.g. lipid-lowering agents, antihypertensive agents); those that have a narrow efficacy/toxicity ratio (e.g. digoxin, warfarin); or those that are known to induce (rifampicin [rifampin]) or inhibit (fluconazole) the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Metformin is currently a key compound in the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, used either alone or in combination with other antihyperglycaemics. There are no clinically relevant metabolic interactions with metformin, because this compound is not metabolised and does not inhibit the metabolism of other drugs. In contrast, sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones are extensively metabolised in the liver via the CYP system and thus, may be subject to drug-drug metabolic interactions. Many HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are also metabolised via the CYP system. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interactions may occur, it is not clear whether drug-drug interactions between oral antihyperglycaemic agents and statins may have clinical consequences regarding both efficacy and safety. In contrast, a marked pharmacokinetic interference has been reported between gemfibrozil and repaglinide and, to a lesser extent, between gemfibrozil and rosiglitazone. This leads to a drastic increase in plasma concentrations of each antihyperglycaemic agent when they are coadministered with the fibric acid derivative, and an increased risk of adverse effects. Some antihypertensive agents may favour hypoglycaemic episodes when co-prescribed with sulphonylureas or meglitinide derivatives, especially ACE inhibitors, but this effect seems to result from a pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction rather than from a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. No, or only modest, interferences have been described with glucose-lowering agents and other pharmacological compounds such as digoxin or warfarin. The effects of inducers or inhibitors of CYP isoenzymes on the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of the glucose-lowering agents of each pharmacological class has been tested. Significantly increased (with CYP inhibitors) or decreased (with CYP inducers) plasma levels of sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones have been reported in healthy volunteers, and these pharmacokinetic changes may lead to enhanced or reduced glucose-lowering action, and thus hypoglycaemia or worsening of metabolic control, respectively. In addition, some case reports have evidenced potential drug-drug interactions with various antihyperglycaemic agents that are usually associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia.

Beta-cell response to metformin-glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance) in patients with type 2 diabetes

This exploratory double-blind, randomised, 20-week study evaluated the mechanism of action of metformin-glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance) vs. metformin and glibenclamide in 50 type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled by diet and exercise. A glycaemic target of HbA1C 7.0% was used. Final HbA(1C), fasting glucose and post-oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose were similar between groups, although average doses of metformin and glibenclamide from combination tablets (708 and 3.5 mg) were lower than monotherapy doses (1500 and 6.6 mg). Second-phase insulin during a hyperglycaemic clamp increased by 93% with combination tablets, 36% with metformin and 46% with glibenclamide. The insulin response post-OGTT was more rapid with the combination tablets vs. glibenclamide. First-phase insulin responses improved modestly in all groups, possibly due to reduced glucotoxicity. Changes in insulin sensitivity were minor. Larger beta-cell responses between combination tablets and glibenclamide may reflect more rapid glibenclamide absorption.

Metformin-glibenclamide versus metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

AIM

This double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of metformin-glibenclamide tablets vs. metformin plus rosiglitazone therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

After an open-label, metformin lead-in phase, 318 patients were randomly assigned to treatment based on metformin-glibenclamide 500/2.5 mg tablets (initial daily dose 1000/5 mg) or metformin 500 mg plus rosiglitazone 4 mg (initial daily dose 1000-2000 mg + 4 mg, depending on previous treatment) for 24 weeks. Doses were titrated to achieve the therapeutic glycaemic target. The primary efficacy variable was the change in HbA1C.

RESULTS

At week 24, metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C (-1.5%) and fasting plasma glucose [-2.6 mmol/l (-46 mg/dl)] than metformin plus rosiglitazone [-1.1%, p < 0.001; -2 mmol/l (-36 mg/dl), p = 0.03]. More patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide attained HbA1C <7.0% than did those in the metformin plus rosiglitazone group (60 vs. 47%) and had fasting plasma glucose levels <7 mmol/l (<126 mg/dl) by week 24 (34 vs. 25%). Both treatments were well tolerated. Frequency of adverse gastrointestinal events was comparable between groups. Four per cent of patients receiving metformin-glibenclamide withdrew because of symptomatic hypoglycaemia contrasted with 3% of patients receiving metformin plus rosiglitazone who withdrew because of persistent hyperglycaemia. Hypoglycaemic events were mild or moderate in intensity and were easily self-managed.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin-glibenclamide tablets resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1C and fasting plasma glucose compared with metformin plus rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The results of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study indicate that metformin treatment is associated with a reduction in total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and is considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use compared to placebo and other glucose-lowering treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A secondary objective was to evaluate the blood lactate levels for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was performed of The Cochrane Library (up to 8/2005), MEDLINE (up to 8/2005), EMBASE (up to 11/2000), OLD MEDLINE, and REACTIONS (up to 8/2005), in order to identify all studies of metformin treatment from 1966 to August 2005. The Cumulated Index Medicus was used to search relevant articles from 1959 to 1965. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators. Date of latest search: August 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials in patients with type 2 diabetes that lasted longer than one month were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy. Observational cohort studies of metformin treatment lasting greater than one month were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials to be included, assessed study quality and extracted data. The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for placebo or other treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases in the metformin and non-metformin groups were calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 206 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 47,846 patient-years of metformin use or in 38,221 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics with 95% confidence intervals the upper limit for the true incidence of metformin-associated lactic acidosis was 6.3 cases per 100,000 patient-years, and the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis in the non-metformin group was 7.8 cases per 100,000 patient-years. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to placebo or other non-biguanide therapies. The mean lactate levels were slightly lower for metformin treatment compared to phenformin (WMD -0.75 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.15).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments if prescribed under the study conditions.

Metformin monotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an anti-hyperglycaemic agent used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Type 2 diabetes may present long-term complications: micro- (retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy) and macrovascular (stroke, myocardial infarction and peripheral vascular disease). Two meta-analyses have been published before, although only secondary outcomes were assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy on mortality, morbidity, quality of life, glycaemic control, body weight, lipid levels, blood pressure, insulinaemia, and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were obtained from computerised searches of multiple electronic databases and hand searches of reference lists of relevant trials identified. Date of last search: September 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: Diabetes mellitus type 2, metformin versus any other oral intervention, assessment of relevant clinical outcome measures, use of random allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data, using a standard data extraction form. Data were summarised under a random effects model. Dichotomous data were expressed as relative risk. We calculated the risk difference (RD), and the Number Needed to Treat, when it was possible. We collected data of mean and standard deviation from changes to baseline. However many trials reported end point data. This limitation lead to the expression of the results as standardised mean differences (SMD) and an overall SMD was calculated. Heterogeneity was tested for using the Z score and the I-squared statistic. Subgroup, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were used to explore heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included for analysis 29 trials with 37 arms (5259 participants), comparing metformin (37 arms and 2007 participants) with sulphonylureas (13 and 1167), placebo (12 and 702), diet (three and 493), thiazolidinediones (three and 132), insulin (two and 439), meglitinides (two and 208), and glucosidase inhibitors (two and 111). Nine studies reported data on primary outcomes. Obese patients allocated to intensive blood glucose control with metformin showed a greater benefit than chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin for any diabetes-related outcomes (P = 0.009), and for all-cause mortality (P = 0.03). Obese participants assigned to intensive blood glucose control with metformin showed a greater benefit than overweight patients on conventional treatment for any diabetes-related outcomes (P = 0.004), diabetes-related death (P = 0.03), all-cause mortality (P = 0.01), and myocardial infarction (P = 0.02). Patients assigned to metformin monotherapy showed a significant benefit for glycaemia control, weight, dyslipidaemia, and diastolic blood pressure. Metformin presents a strong benefit for HbA1c when compared with placebo and diet; and a moderated benefit for: glycaemia control, LDL cholesterol, and BMI or weight when compared with sulphonylureas.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Metformin may be the first therapeutic option in the diabetes mellitus type 2 with overweight or obesity, as it may prevent some vascular complications, and mortality. Metformin produces beneficial changes in glycaemia control, and moderated in weight, lipids, insulinaemia and diastolic blood pressure. Sulphonylureas, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, insulin, and diet fail to show more benefit for glycaemia control, body weight, or lipids, than metformin.

Effects of combination treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor and sulfonylurea on glucose levels in rats

The effects of orally administered dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitor on the glucose-lowering effect of glibenclamide are still unknown. We evaluated the effects of combination treatment with a long-lasting DPP-IV inhibitor, K579 ((S)-1-[4-methyl-1-(2-pyrimidinyl)-4-piperidylamino]acetyl-2-pyrrolidinecarbonitrile), and glibenclamide on the glycemic responses to glucose loading in rats. Treatment with K579 inhibited the plasma DPP-IV activity even 8 h after the administration. K579 significantly suppressed the blood glucose elevation in glibenclamide-pretreated rats without excessive hypoglycemia. These profiles of K579 indicate that it could be useful agent to correct the postprandial glucose excursion in type 2 diabetes patients by combination treatment with glibenclamide.

Initiating oral glucose-lowering therapy with metformin in tyape 2 diabetic patients: an evidence-based strategy to reduce the burden of late-developing diabetes complications

A major aim of glucose-lowering therapy in people with diabetes is to delay or prevent the late-developing complications of diabetes that threaten the quality and duration of life. While intensive interventions to control hyperglycaemia may impair well-being to some extent, the balance of quality of life is usually highly positive. Diet and exercise therapy remains the cornerstone of management, and should usually be given a trial alone first. However, the magnitude and duration of benefit from this intervention is insufficient for most people. More frequent, early, use of metformin is an evidence-based strategy for reducing the risk of adverse outcomes of diabetes in people with type 2 diabetes with sub-optimal glucose control on lifestyle measures alone. This has been recognised in recent evidenced-based guidelines from the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence and from Diabetes UK, which now support the use of metformin as initial pharmacological therapy for all people without contraindications to the drug. Other national and local guideline committees should consider updating their recommendations on diabetes management in line with these findings.

Rapid determination of metformin in human plasma by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method

A rapid, sensitive and specific liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method is described for quantitation of metformin in human plasma. After a simple, one-step protein precipitation using acetonitrile, metformin and the internal standard diphenhydramine were chromatographed on a C(8) column and detected by tandem mass spectrometry. An atmospheric pressure chemical ionization interface was chosen to reduce ion suppression from sample matrix components and provide high sensitivity. The method has a chromatographic total run time of 3.4 min and was linear within the range 2-2000 ng/ml. Intra- and inter-day precision, expressed as the relative standard deviation (R.S.D.), ranged from 4.4 to 5.7% and from 1.3 to 2.8%, respectively. Assay accuracy was less than 1% in terms of %RE (relative error). The assay was used to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of metformin after an oral administration of multicomponent formulation containing 500 mg metformin and 2.5 mg glyburide to 20 healthy volunteers.

Durable efficacy of metformin/glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance) during 52 weeks of open-label treatment in type 2 diabetic patients with hyperglycaemia despite previous sulphonylurea monotherapy

Oral anti-diabetic combinations that address insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction (e.g. metformin and glibenclamide) represent a rational therapeutic option for patients uncontrolled on monotherapy. A 52-week, open-label extension to a double-blind study evaluated metformin-glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance) in 477 patients with hyperglycaemia despite sulphonylurea therapy. Reductions in HbA1C were maintained, with a mean reduction of -1.7% after 52 weeks, compared with the baseline value for the double-blind trial. Eighty-five patients receiving 4 x 500 mg/2.5 mg tablets daily displayed a marked improvement in HbA1c following up-titration to a regimen of 2 x 500 mg/2.5 mg + 3 x 500 mg/5 mg tablets. Lipid profiles improved significantly. The combination tablets were well tolerated: 11.1% of patients reported hypoglycaemic symptoms (all either mild or moderate severity). No patient withdrew or required pharmacologic intervention for hypoglycaemia. Metformin-glibenclamide combination tablets are an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for intensifying oral anti-diabetic therapy.

Transitioning pharmacologic therapy from oral agents to insulin for type 2 diabetes

Prospective intervention trials using an intensive therapy approach in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes have provided evidence that achieving tight glycemic control can impede the development and progression of microvascular complications. Treatment of type 2 diabetic patients has revolved around the use of oral agents to improve insulin secretion or tissue sensitization. As therapy turns to the inclusion of insulin - most often in combination with oral agents - the physician and patient must both be prepared for the issues regarding management of an injectable agent. The objective of this article is to review current evidence supporting the benefits of adding insulin therapy to existing oral hypoglycemic regimens of patients for whom these therapies are no longer providing adequate glycemic control. Approaches to initiating insulin therapy and adjusting treatment regimens are discussed, with a view towards making the addition or switch to insulin a simple and achievable next step in treatment.